Bombay High Court
State Of ... vs Vivekanand Laxman Ban on 11 May, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
Apeal308.01 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.308 OF 2001.
APPELLANT: State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Ramdaspeth, Akola.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT: Vivekanand s/o Laxman Ban,
aged about 36 years, Occu:
Jr.Clerk, Depty R.T.O.Officer, Akola,
P.S.Civil Lines, Akola.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ms.H.M.Jaipurkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Mr.A.H.Lohiya, Advocate for the respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J.
DATED: 11th MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Advocate Shri S.P.Deshpande since is appointed as
Additional Government Pleader, Advocate Shri A.H.Lohiya appears for
respondent/accused.
2. By way of present appeal, appellant/State takes an exception
to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Akola in Special Case No.1 of 1991, thereby acquitting the
respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The respondent/accused was working as Junior Clerk in the
office of Regional Transport Office, Akola. Deceased accused no.2 was
caught raid handed while accepting an amount of Rs.700/- on behalf of
present respondent/accused in a trap conducted by the raiding party,
for release of vehicle and return of R.C.book.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
when prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance, the learned
Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused.
5. Shri Lohiya, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/accused, on the contrary, submitted that learned Trial
Judge has rightly, on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence,
acquitted the accused.
6. Perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court would
reveal that learned trial Judge has found that the sanction which was
accorded by the Sanctioning Authority was not in accordance with law.
By now, it is settled law that grant of sanction is not an empty formality.
The sanctioning authority is required to apply its mind before according
sanction to prosecute an employee. The perusal of evidence of PW 4
Ramchandra Pagare, Sanctioning Authority, who at the relevant time
was acting as Regional Transport Officer, would reveal that he had
typed the draft sanction order in verbatim as was received by him from
Deputy Commissioner, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. It further
reveals that he had not applied his mind to the documents which were
placed before him for according the sanction. He has fairly admitted
that in the official correspondence of the Regional Transport Office,
word "whereas" is not used. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW 4,
learned trial Judge has come to conclusion that the sanction, which was
granted by the sanctioning authority was without application of mind.
7. The scope for interference in an appeal against acquittal is
very limited. Unless the Court finds that the view taken by the trial
Court is either impossible or perverse, it is not permissible for this Court
to interfere with the findings of acquittal. No impossibility or perversity
is found in the judgment and order of learned trial Judge warranting
interference. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
chute
