SUDHIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this revision, the applicant has challenged the order dtd. 26/10/2023 passed below Exh.35 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Special (ACB) Case No.4/2016 for discharge under Sec. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The applicant is an employee of a private school who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 'Sant Vidyalaya, Mindala, taluka Nagbhid, district Chandrapur.' The said school is run by 'Mahatma Jyotiba Fule Magasvargiya Mandal, Mindala'. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired as Assistant Teacher on 30. 9.2019. On 3/11/2014, Dipak Natthuji Ambade, who claims to have worked as Lecturer at 'Sant Hardas Junior Arts College, Mindala, approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (the bureau) at Chandrapur alleging that co-accused Ashok Narayan Khandale, through the applicant, informed him that the informant has to pay Rs.3,50,000.00 for regularizing his services from non-grant to grant-in-aid basis. As he was not willing to pay the amount, he approached the office of the bureau and lodged a complaint. On 3/11/2014, trap was arranged. The verification of the demand was done in presence of the panchas. On 3/11/2014, co-accused Ashok Narayan Khandale was caught accepting the gratification amount. The applicant was arraigned as an accused on an allegation that he abetted commission of such crime. Accordingly, he along with the co-accused was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act).

(3.) The applicant has filed an application vide Exh.35 for discharge under Sec. 239 of the Code. Initially, the applicant has filed an application which came to be rejected. Against the said order, revision bearing Criminal Revision Application No.87/2021 was filed, but the same was withdrawn with liberty to raise a ground of absence of sanction. The application was filed on the ground that no sanction was obtained prior to prosecuting the applicant. The cognizance is taken by the Special Court, in absence of sanction, which is not permissible. It is further contended that officer of the bureau issued communication in the name of the Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary, dtd. 4/2/2016 for obtaining the sanction. The Education Officer accorded the sanction though he is not the competent authority. The court cannot take cognizance against the accused on invalid sanction.