Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah. Thr. A.C.B. ... vs Suresh Pandurang Zore on 21 June, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
apeal499.03.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
through the Anti Corruption Bureau,
Buldana, Tq. & Distt. Buldana. :: APPELLANT
.. Versus
..
Suresh Pandurang Zoreig
aged 30 yrs., Occ.- Patwari,
Kalapvihir, H. No. 5, Tq. Mehkar,
Distt. Buldana, At preset at
Sindhed Raja, Distt. Buldana. :: RESPONDENT
...................................................................................................................................
Shri S. J. Kadu, A. P. P. for the State-appellant.
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate a/w Shri A. S. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 21 JUNE, 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order
dated 23rd April, 2003 rendered in Special Anti Corruption Cases No.
2/1997 and 3/1997 by the Judge, Special Court (ACB), Buldana
thereby acquitting the respondent in both the cases on the technical
ground of sanction to prosecute given under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, being invalid.
2. I have heard learned A.P.P. for the State and learned
apeal499.03.odt 2/3
Counsel appearing for the respondent. I have carefully gone through
the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order.
3. It is seen from the record of the case that there are clear-cut
admissions given by P.W.-2 Brijlal Bibe, the then Deputy Collector,
who had issued sanction to prosecute the respondent in those two
cases that when the sanction was issued by him, he was only
Probationary Deputy Collector and that his powers were limited to
only those matters, which were specifically mentioned in the
appointment letter. However, the appointment letter was never
produced in the evidence by the prosecution. This witness has also
admitted that the respondent was appointed by the Collector on
compassionate ground and the Sub Divisional Officer has no authority
to appoint any person to the post of Talathi on compassionate ground.
It is further seen from the record that no specific evidence was
adduced by the prosecution showing that the sanction issuing authority
i.e. P.W.-2 Brijlal Bibe was competent to remove from service the
respondent. With such an evidence being available on record, the
conclusion drawn by the learned Special Judge in the impugned
judgment and order that the sanction given for prosecuting the
respondent in those two cases was not legal and proper and that it was
invalid, cannot be faulted with. If the prosecution case has been based
upon the foundation of an invalid sanction, the whole structure which
apeal499.03.odt 3/3
stands on such a foundation must crumble to the ground. The
consequent acquittal of the respondent recorded in both the special
cases by the learned Special Judge cannot, therefore, be seen as illegal
or arbitrary or perverse. There are no valid grounds available for
making any interference with the impugned judgment and order. The
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE
wwl
