RAM NARAYAN RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON repeated calls no body appears on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the State Vigilance Department, Mr. A.K. Kashyap is present in Court. On request of the Court, Ms. Seema Rani Gupta, Advocate accepted to argue on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it appears from the evidence of witnesses namely PW 1, PW 11 and PW 14 that they have given different place of occurrence, whereas PW 1 has stated that the bribe money was accepted in front of hotel. The I.O. PW 8 stated that the bribe money was accepted in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Education. PW 11 stated that the occurrence of acceptance took place out side the D.S.E. office. PW 14, informant stated the money was accepted in front of the book stall and as such there is majority contradiction in the place of occurrence and as such the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is fit to be set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the vigilance has submitted that there is no discrepancy in the place of occurrence because all the witnesses are stating the same place. The fact that the money was accepted by the accused who is head clerk in the D.S.E. office out side the office and in front of the tea shop and all the witness are stating the same. PW 1 stated that the money was accepted in front of the hotel and PW stated that the occurrence took place out side the D.S.E. office and the I.O. stated that the occurrence took place in the D.S.E. office premises and the informant PW 14 stated that the money was accepted by the informant at the tea stall. So all are referring to the same place and there is no discrepancy and as such the Trial Court rightly stated that there is no discrepancy in the place of occurrence. As such the argument of the counsel for the appellant has got no substance. He has further stated that as per Section 19(3) a finding of conviction cannot be set aside by the Appellate Court on the ground of irregularity in the sanction. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant only because the sanction was granted on letho paper. Moreover, the Sanctioning Authority PW 13 was examined in the Court and he clearly stated that after perusing the entire record and finding prima facie case sanction was granted. He further relied in a decision reported in 2005 (4) SCC 81 wherein Supreme Court has held that if the sanction order is not in proper order then the Sanctioning Authority must be examined and in this case Sanctioning Authority was examined and stated before the Court that the sanction was granted after the perusal of entire record.