STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAIKISHAN LAXMINARAYAN MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra and learned counsel for the respondent-original accused.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nasik in Special Case No.6 of 1998, this appeal has been preferred. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent-accused under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) IN the present case, no sanction has been granted for prosecution of respondent-accused. It has come in the evidence of PW 4 that after he sent proposal for getting sanction to Deputy Director, Vigilance, PHIC, he received letter Exh.67 to the effect that the competent authority had not issued sanction for the prosecution of the accused. On account of want of sanction, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view.