PRAVINKUMAR PITAMBAR DEORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, petitioner/original accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore is challenging the order dated 17th May 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Nashik, on an application Exhibit 4 in Special Case No. 23 of 2016 between the parties, thereby partly rejecting the application filed by the revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore seeking discharge from the Special Case bearing No. 23 of 2016, for offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act for the sake of brevity). Along with him co-accused Prakash Lakaria is also being prosecuted in the said case. By this impugned order, the learned Special Judge under the P.C. Act, Nashik, discharged the revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, by holding that cognizance of those offences cannot be taken against him for want of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. 1988. However, revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore is aggrieved by clause (2) of the impugned order whereby his prayer for discharge from the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, came to be rejected by holding that cognizance of the said offence can be taken, as no sanction as envisaged by Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is required for taking cognizance of the said offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

(2.) Heard Shri Mohite, the learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore. The learned advocate vehemently argued that perusal of the entire charge-sheet goes to show that case of the prosecution was to the effect that revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore was the main culprit in the matter, as he has demanded gratification other than legal remuneration for doing favour in official act of releasing arrears of salary, bonus and increment for the period of suspension of complainant Dr. Laxman Bagade as well as balance of pensionary benefit payable to another complainant Dr. Ravindra Dev. Prosecution has averred in the charge-sheet that it was accused No. 2 Prakash Lakaria, who has aided revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore, Deputy Municipal Commissioner, in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for showing favour to complainants Dr. Laxman Bagade and Dr. Ravindra Dev by releasing arrears of their emoluments and pension. However, as the State has refused to accord sanction as envisaged by Section 19 of P.C. Act, 1988, for prosecuting revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore, the prosecution at the time of filing of the charge-sheet, modulated its case to show that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was by co-accused Prakash Lakaria, Senior Clerk, and the revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore aided him in demanding and accepting illegal gratification and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988. In submission of the learned advocate appearing for revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore, there is no iota of evidence against revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore for commission of alleged offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

(3.) Shri Mohite, the learned advocate appearing for revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore further argued that provisions of offence of abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or Section 11 made punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is not applicable to public servants as special provision is made for punishing public servants abetting offences punishable under the P.C. Act, 1988. As special provisions are made for punishing public servants for abetting offence punishable under P.C. Act, 1988, Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, does not take public servants in its purview for imposing penal consequences prescribed thereunder. For this purpose, the learned advocate for revision petitioner/accused No. 1 Pravinkumar Deore drew my attention to provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, and submitted that for commission of offences punishable under these Sections, no sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is required. The principal accused cannot be an abettor. However, sanction is required for offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of P.C. Act, 1988, only because those are offences committed by public servants. It is argued that Section 10 of P.C. Act, 1988, makes special provision for punishing public servants for abetment of offence defined in Sections 8 and 9, and therefore, it requires sanction under Section 19 of the said Act. However, as public servant is not covered by Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, there is no need to obtain the sanction as envisaged by Section 19 of the said Act.