The State Of Mah.Thr.Acb Amravati vs Shrikrishna Haribhau Chawaldhal
2017 Latest Caselaw 2576 Bom

                                                     1                                        jg.apeal62.06.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                               Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2006

The State of Maharashtra 
Through Police Inspector, 
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Amravati.                                                             ..... Appellant

           // Versus // 

Shrikrishna s/o Haribhau Chawaldhal, 
Aged about 45 years, 
R/o. Gilani-Nagar, Umarsara Gram 
Panchayat, Yavatmal, 
Tq. & Distt. Yavatmal.                                                        ..... Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. B. Bissa, A.P.P. for the State/appellant 
None for the respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                CORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                                                             DATE    :   19/05/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and

order dated 23-8-2005 rendered in Special Case No. 4/1999 by the

Special Judge, Yavatmal thereby acquitting respondent of the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was working as

Steno-Typist in the District Health Office, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal

in year 1997-98. The complainant Minesh Kakde had incurred

2 jg.apeal62.06.odt

considerable expenditure on account of medical treatment of his wife

and, therefore, was interested in claiming reimbursement of this

expenditure from his employer. He was a Teacher at Pathrad Gole,

Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal. In order to prepare medical claim, some

signatures and counter signatures of respondent were required. The

bill was, therefore, submitted to the respondent for obtaining his

counter signature. Respondent's duty was to place those bills before

the District Health Officer and obtain his signatures. The respondent,

however, did not perform his duty in spite of repeated visits and

requests made to him by the complainant. Ultimately, the respondent

revealed his real intention when he demanded from the complainant

a bribe of Rs. 2,000/-. After negotiations, it was agreed between the

complainant and respondent that the complainant would pay to the

respondent an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe for doing his official

work. This settlement took place on 24-9-1998.

2. The complainant, however, was not willing to pay bribe

to the respondent and, therefore, he lodged a report with Anti

Corruption Bureau, Amravati on 28-9-1998. Anti Corruption Bureau,

Amravati decided to lay a trap for catching the respondent red handed

while accepting bribe. Necessary arrangements were made and the

3 jg.apeal62.06.odt

trap was laid on 29-9-1998. The trap was successful. The respondent

accepted the tainted currency notes forming together Rs. 1,000/- from

the complainant and kept them in the left side pocket of his trouser.

The members of the raiding party on getting signal arrived at the spot

and apprehended the respondent. Tainted currency notes were

recovered from his possession. Necessary panchanamas were drawn,

statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent.

3. On merits of the case, learned Special judge found that

the prosecution evidence was insufficient, even sanction was illegal

and invalid and, therefore, acquitted the respondent of the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act by his judgment and order dated

23-8-2005. It is the same judgment and order which are under

challenge in the present appeal.

4. I have heard Shri Bissa, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State. None is present for the respondent. I have

carefully gone through the record of the case including the impugned

judgment and order.

4 jg.apeal62.06.odt

5. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

the evidence of the prosecution has not been properly appreciated by

the learned Special Judge and, therefore, the findings recorded in the

impugned judgment are illegal and perverse.

6. Upon careful consideration of prosecution evidence, I am

of the view that there is hardly any scope in the present case to make

any interference in the impugned judgment and order as the finding

of facts are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and are not

the result of committing any illegality or perversity.

7. Since the sanction to prosecute the respondent is the

foundation, I think it appropriate to first deal with the finding

recorded on the point of sanction by the learned Special Judge.

8. It is seen from the evidence of P.W. 3 Shri Janardhan

Shirbhate that at the time when he issued sanction on 12-4-1999

which is at Exhibit 52, he was serving as Deputy Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal and holding the charge of Chief

Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. The substantive post held

by P.W. 3 was of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,

Yavatmal. Admittedly, removing authority for a Stenographer like the

5 jg.apeal62.06.odt

respondent was the officer holding the substantive post of Chief

Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal and not the post of Deputy

Chief Executive Officer. But, the sanction to prosecute has been given

in the instant case by P.W. 3 who was only occupying substantive post

of Deputy Chief Executive Officer. It is obvious that the sanction

accorded for prosecuting the respondent is illegal and invalid.

9. The sanction accorded vide Exhibit 52 can also be seen to

be invalid on other ground, particularly, on the ground of non

application of mind. Of course, P.W. 3 Shirbhate has stated that he

has perused the record of the case, applied his mind and then

accorded sanction, but, the manner in which sanction was accorded

by P.W. 3 Shirbhate would belie his such evidence. P.W. 3 Shirbhate

has only signed the proforma sanction order and nothing more. He

has admitted this fact. He has also admitted that in this proforma

order, supplied by Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur, he only

mentioned his name at the blank place provided for name of the

sanctioning officer and put his signature. He has admitted that after

signing and issuing the sanction order, some corrections were made

by Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Nagpur. These corrections related

to scoring out names of two places such as Shirkhed and Amravati

6 jg.apeal62.06.odt

and substituting those places by another place, Yavatmal. Even the

date of 3-10-1998 which was originally mentioned in the duly signed

sanction order was scored out by Anti Corruption Bureau and

corrected as 3-4-1999. The crime number that was registered on the

basis of complaint lodged with Anti Corruption Bureau was

3309/1998 but in the sanction order vide Exhibit 52, this crime

number was mentioned as 3109/1998. These admissions and the

deeds of the office of Anti Corruption Bureau stand testimony to the

fact that there was complete non application of mind on the part of

this witness P.W. 3 Shirbhate in according sanction for prosecution of

the respondent.

10. With such evidence available on record, I find that no

other conclusion than the one which is about the sanction being illegal

and invalid could have been drawn by the learned Special Judge. He

has rightly found that sanction accorded for prosecuting the

respondent was illegal and invalid. The sanction for prosecution

constitutes foundation on which the edifice of the case is built by the

prosecution against the person accused of a bribery offence. When

the foundation collapses, the whole structure inevitably bites the dust.

This is what has happened in the instant case and, therefore, there is

7 jg.apeal62.06.odt

no reason for me to consider the prosecution evidence on merits of

the case. The acquittal granted to the respondent by the trial Court

cannot be faulted with. There is no merit in the present appeal. The

appeal stands dismissed.

JUDGE

wasnik