STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VITHAL SAJAN AHIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the State as it is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dtd. 2/7/2002 in Special Case No.9 of 1997, which was tried for commission of offence under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the PC Act").

(2.) Learned APP for Appellant State would submit that accused was working as Assistant Lineman in Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). Complainant is an agriculturist. Accused had demanded bribe under the garb of private fees to reconnect disconnected electricity connection. Therefore, complainant has approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Thereafter, trap was laid. Demand was made and the learned trial Court has answered this point in affirmative. Even acceptance is held by the learned trial Judge to be proved and the said point is answered in affirmative. However, according to him, for only want of sanction, learned trial Court has acquitted accused. He submitted that grant of sanction was only upon due satisfaction. Sanctioning authority himself has stepped in the witness box, but the learned trial Court hold that there was no authority with sanctioning authority to grant sanction. Infact, there is documentary evidence regarding delegation to grant sanction, but the same has not been considered by the learned trial Judge and therefore, for all above reasons, he prays to allow the appeal.

(3.) In answer to above, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. That for establishing the charge, apart from proving demand and acceptance, it is in incumbent upon the prosecution to also prove that sanction to prosecute was in accordance with law. He pointed out that sanctioning authority was holding additional charge and not full- fledge charge to accord sanction. Learned Counsel would submit that in the present matter, Deputy Executive Engineer was holding charge of Executive Engineer and he exercised powers, which are bestowed on superior authority i.e. Executive Engineer. Therefore, there is defect in the prosecution and hence, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant. According to him, there is no merit in the case and so he prays not to disturb findings of the learned trial Court.