DHIRAJLAL CHATRABHUJ RATNAGRAHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A valid sanction order is the starting point for a prosecution on corruption charges. The courts have been severe, and for good reason, on sanction orders that display non-application of mind, but in this case a unique situation has arisen where the prosecuting authority applied for fresh sanction on the ground that the first sanction was defective. The subsequent sanction order issued by the successor-in office has been struck down by the trial Court on the ground that it was issued mechanically and the learned Judge proceeds to hold that the first sanction order, which was on record, was good enough to sustain the prosecution. Not only is this impermissible but it needs to be stated that the earlier order having been superseded that it cannot thereafter be resurrected by the prosecutions efforts to resuscitate it.

(2.) AN often oevrlooked dimension relating to trap cases in corruption offences arises in this proceeding. That it is impermissible for a public servant to receive illegal gratification is the pith and substance of the offences defined under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Undoubtedly, this receipt has to be in relation to an official act and is, therefore, wholly outside the ambit of the sphere of personal activity. In a case where the prosecution establishes the receipt through a trap and where the defence is one of denial there exists a distinct obligation on the part of the prosecution to establish that the receipt was in relation to official duties and, further more, that it constituted illegal gratification. There are no presumptions available to the prosecution as far as these two vital ingredients are concerned and where the evidence under these heads falls short of establishing the essential ingredients of the offence, the charge must necessarily fail. On the rather unusual facts of the present case, which need to be briefly recounted below, these principles have fallen for determination.

(3.) THE appellant who, at the relevant time, was an Assistant Rationing Officer, stands convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Act, whereunder the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution alleges that between September and November 1981, the accused who in his capacity of the Assistant Rationing Officer, was attached to the Rationing Office 13-C at Mazagaon, Bombay, is alleged to have demanded and received five amounts ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200/- from Hasmukhlal Vora (P. W. 1) who, at the relevant time, was running a ration shop in the area under the jurisdiction of the accused. It is alleged that in the course of his visits to the shop, much to the annoyance of the complainant, the accused was in the habit of demanding various amounts of money which the complainant, Hasmukhal Vora, after some amount of bargaining had to ultimately part with. Finally, on 2-11-1981, a complaint was lodged by him with the Anti-Corruption Bureau wherein he pointed out that the accused had asked for a further amount of Rs. 200/- and the authorities concerned, acting on this complaint, planned a trap on the following day. However, the accused did not turn up at the shop on the 3rd and 4th November, 1981 in spite of the fact that Anti-Corruption Bureau Officers were waiting for him.