STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VISHWASRAO WAMANRAO MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide instant appeal, State is taking exception to the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dtd. 18/5/2002 thereby acquitting present respondent from offence under Ss. 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] while deciding Special Case No. 6 of 2000.

(2.) Learned APP would submit that prosecution was launched against present respondent who was working as a Talathi. That, he had demanded illegal gratification for carrying out mutation entry on being approached by the complainant. Complainant was not willing to comply with the demand and therefore he approached ACB authorities and lodged complaint. After which Anti Corruption Bureau [ACB] authorities arranged and laid trap and accused was apprehended on demanding and accepting bribe. Learned APP therefore submits that both, demand as well as acceptance, has been cogently proved. Complainant and shadow pancha are both lending support to each other and are consistent on the aspect of demand and acceptance. Therefore, according to him, there is strong statutory presumption available under Sec. 20 of the PC Act. According to him, in spite of so, learned trial court has acquitted accused on the sole ground that sanction to prosecute was invalid.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the accused would point out that there is no error or perversity in appreciation or view and conclusion drawn by learned trial court. He pointed out that it is settled law that unless there is valid sanction, guilt cannot be recorded. He pointed out that law further expects that sanctioning authority should not only be competent to appoint and remove but also should apply its mind to the prosecution documents before according sanction. Here, apparently the sanctioning authority was on first count, incompetent, and secondly, draft sanction order received from ACB authorities was reproduced by sanction order. Consequently, there is no independent application of mind. Further it is submitted that evidence of prosecution shows that in fact there was no work of complainant with accused at the time of alleged demand or trap and therefore there is no question of seeking bribe. That learned trial court has thereby correctly appreciated and taken correct view and therefore he prays to dismiss the appeal.