Bombay High Court
Bajirao Hiraman Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 January, 2018
Bench: Sangitrao S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2008
Bajirao Hiraman Rathod,
Age : 58 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o.: Samta Colony,
Near Mahatma Phule School,
Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, APPELLANT
District Beed (Ori. Accused)
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT
(Prosecution)
----
Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.K.D. Munde, A.P.P. for respondent/State
----
CORAM : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th JANUARY, 2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd JANUARY, 2018
JUDGMENT :
The appellant has questioned legality and
correctness of the judgment dated 28th March, 2008,
delivered in Special Case No. 3 of 2006 by the learned
Special Judge, Ambajogai, whereby he has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
7 and 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) of the
2 criapl124-2008
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act", for
short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
one year and six months respectively, besides fine of
Rs.5000/- each on those two counts with default clause.
2. The appellant was serving as a Police-Sub-
Inspector in Police Station, Kaij, District Beed in the
year 2005. The complainant namely Meghraj Tulshiram
Ghule, resident of Sirpura, Taluka Kaij, District Beed,
was the registered owner of a Mahindra Car bearing
registration No.MH-14/R-3259. His brother namely
Vaijnath, who was holding a driving licence, used to ply
it on hire. The appellant registered a crime in Police
Station, Kaij in respect of the above numbered car for
the offences under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Sections 184, 66(1) read with Section 192 of
the Motor Vehicles Act on 9th October, 2005. The brother
of the complainant namely Vaijnath informed the
complainant on 13th October, 2005 that on that day at
about 5.00 p.m., when he was near old Government
hospital at Kaij, the appellant informed him that a
crime has been registered in respect of the above
numbered car and asked him to take the car to Police
Station. He further demanded Rs.2000/- for releasing
3 criapl124-2008
the car and for granting bail to Vaijnath.
3. The complainant filed an application on 14th
October, 2005 in the Court at Kaij for getting the car
released. The Court called for the reply of the
appellant on that application. The complainant took the
letter of the Court calling for reply of the appellant
by hand and delivered it to the appellant on 15 th
October, 2005 in the evening in Police Station, Kaij. At
that time, the appellant asked the complainant to
produce Vaijnath in the Police Station on the say that
he wanted to arrest Vaijnath. He further told that in
case Vaijnath was to be released on bail immediately on
his arrest and the complainant wanted a favourable reply
in the application for release of the car, the amount of
Rs.2000/- should be paid to him. He further warned the
complainant that in case money is not paid to him, he
would see that the car would remain rusting in Police
Station itself for about twelve months. The complainant
requested the appellant to reduce his demand for money.
At that time, the appellant asked him to pay minimum
Rs.1000/- for releasing Vaijnath on bail and for giving
favourable reply for release of the car. The appellant
asked the complainant to bring the amount of Rs.1000/-
4 criapl124-2008
and Vaijnath in Police Station, Kaij on 17th October,
2005 in the afternoon.
4. Then on 17th October, 2005 at about 9.00 a.m.,
the complainant met the appellant in Police Station,
Kaij. The appellant asked him whether he had brought
the amount of Rs.1000/- and Vaijnath. The complainant
assured that he would bring money and his brother
Vaijnath as well in the afternoon as was directed by the
appellant earlier and requested the appellant to give
favourable reply for release of the car. Since the
complainant was not willing to pay bribe to the
appellant, he went to the office of Anti Corruption
Bureau (ACB), Beed and filed complaint against the
appellant.
5. Dy.S.P. (ACB) Kolekar arranged for trap. He
called two panchas. The contents of the complaint were
verified through the complainant in the presence of both
the panchas. The demonstration in respect of use and
characteristics of anthracene powder was conducted. The
currency notes of Rs.1000/- produced by the complainant
were smeared with anthracene powder and kept in the left
side chest pocket of the shirt of the complainant with
the instruction that he should handover those notes to
5 criapl124-2008
the appellant only on being demanded by the appellant.
The panch namely Balkrushna Ingole was instructed to be
with the complainant and to watch the events and hear
conversation between the appellant and the complainant.
The complainant was instructed to give the predetermined
signal after acceptance of the tainted currency notes by
the appellant. The other members of the raiding party
also were given necessary instructions. The pre-trap
panchanama was prepared.
6. At about 2.30 p.m., the complainant and panch
Ingole were sent to the Police Station for verification
of the demand of bribe made by the appellant. At that
time, the appellant asked the complainant whether he had
brought Rs.1000/-. The appellant informed him that he
had brought Rs.500/- only. At that time, the appellant
told the complainant that he was going to the Court and
asked the complainant to bring money in the Court.
Therefore, necessary arrangement was made for laying the
trap in the Court premises at Kaij.
7. The appellant was standing in front of the
Criminal Section in the Court premises of Kaij. The
complainant and panch Ingole went there. The appellant
enquired with the complainant as to whether he had
6 criapl124-2008
brought money. The complainant answered in the
affirmative. Then on being demanded by the appellant,
the complainant took out the tainted currency notes of
Rs.1000/- from the left side chest pocket of his shirt
by his right hand and handed it over to the appellant.
The appellant received those currency notes by his left
hand and kept them in the left side pocket of his pant.
Thereafter, the predetermined signal was given and the
appellant was immediately caught hold of by the other
members of the raiding party. The tainted currency notes
of Rs.1000/- were recovered from the left side pocket of
the pant of the appellant. The reply prepared by the
appellant and the bail papers of Vaijnath were found
with the appellant. The trap panchanama was prepared.
The statements of witnesses were recorded. The papers
of investigation were sent to the Sanctioning Authority
through the Superintendent of Police, Beed, seeking
sanction for prosecution of the appellant. After
obtaining sanction, the appellant came to be prosecuted
for the above mentioned offences.
8. The learned Trial Judge framed charges against
the appellant vide Exh-5 for the above mentioned
offences and explained the contents thereof to him in
7 criapl124-2008
vernacular. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and
false implication on the say that since he had
registered crime against the brother of the complainant
in respect of driving of the above numbered car, the
complainant was annoyed and he got arranged a false trap
and thrusted the tainted currency notes in the left side
pocket of his pant without his knowledge.
9. The prosecution examined the complainant at
Exh-10, the panch Ingole (PW2) at Exh-17 and Dy.S.P.
Kolekar (PW3) at Exh-26 to establish that the appellant
demanded bribe and accepted the same from the
complainant. The Special I.G.P. More (PW4), the
Sanctioning Authority has been examined at Exh-29.
After considering the evidence of the prosecution, the
learned Special Judge held the appellant guilty for the
above mentioned offences. He, therefore, convicted and
sentenced the appellant as stated above.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the complainant had grudge against the appellant
since the appellant had registered a crime in connection
with the above numbered car owned by the complainant
and had booked the brother of the complainant namely
8 criapl124-2008
Vaijnath. The complainant wanted to falsely involve the
appellant in the case of bribery. He, therefore, filed
a false complaint and got arranged a false trap. The
complainant himself thrusted the tainted currency notes
of Rs.1000/- in the left side pocket of the pant of the
appellant. The appellant was not at all aware at that
time. When he realized that something was inserted by
the complainant in the left side pocket of his pant, the
appellant took out that amount by his left hand and at
that time, he was caught hold of by the other members of
the raiding party. He submits that the fingers of left
hand of the appellant were got smeared with anthracene
powder when he tried to take out the currency notes from
the left side pocket of his pant. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant, the explanation given
by the appellant is quite natural and probable. He has
rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
He then submits that the first demand was allegedly made
to Vaijnath on 13th October, 2005. However, on 13th
October, 2005, the appellant was not in the Police
Station and had gone to village Deogaon-Kalegaon in
connection with investigation into some other crimes.
Vaijnath has not been examined by the prosecution.
Therefore, the first demand cannot be said to have been
9 criapl124-2008
established. He then submits that according to the
complainant, after receipt of the tainted currency
notes, the appellant counted them before keeping them
into the pocket of his pant. If that be so, the fingers
of both of his hands should have been smeared with
anthracene powder. However, traces of the anthracene
powder were not noticed on the fingers of the right hand
of the appellant. Therefore, according to him, the
theory of thrusting set up by the appellant would become
probable. He further states that Dy.S.P. Kolekar (PW3)
claims that the tainted currency notes were taken out
from the pocket of the pant of the appellant by panch
No.2. However, Ingole (PW2) states that the said amount
was taken out by the appellant himself. Therefore,
according to him, the evidence of Ingole (PW2) supports
the defence that after realizing that something was
inserted in the pocket of his pant, the appellant
himself took out the tainted currency notes and handed
them over to Dy.S.P. Kolekar. He submits that the
evidence on record is not sufficient, cogent and
consistent to establish that the appellant demanded
bribe from the complainant and accepted it as alleged.
He further submits that Special IGP was not the
appointing Authority of the appellant. The appellant
10 criapl124-2008
was appointed by the Director General of Police (DGP).
Therefore, sanction order (Exh-30) issued by Special IGP
More (PW4) cannot be said to be valid. On this ground
also, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be
set aside.
11. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits
that the evidence of the complainant is quite natural
and probable. It creates great confidence. He had no
reason to lodge false complaint against the appellant
and depose false as well. There may be some minor
variations in the evidence of the complainant, Ingole
(PW2) and Dy.S.P. Kolekar (PW3), but they are not very
material or significant. It is clear from the evidence
on record that the appellant had detained the car of the
complainant. The complainant had filed application for
getting that car released. The Court had called for
reply of the appellant. The appellant wanted to arrest
Vaijnath in connection with the crime registered against
him. The reply as well as bail papers of Vaijnath were
found in possession of the appellant. It is, thus,
clear that the appellant, on the pretext of giving
favourable reply and releasing the brother of the
complainant on bail , demanded bribe of Rs.1000/- from
11 criapl124-2008
the complainant. This demand was verified in the
presence of Ingole (PW2), who is an independent witness
having no malice against the appellant. He then submits
that the tainted currency notes of Rs.1000/- have been
handed over by the complainant to the appellant only on
being demanded by the appellant. The theory of thrusting
of the currency notes into the pocket of the pant of the
appellant is not at all natural, probable and
believable. He submits that the learned Special Judge
has discarded the said theory on valid grounds.
According to him, the prosecution has established beyond
doubt the above mentioned offences against the
appellant. He then submits that Special IGP More (PW4)
had the authority to remove the appellant from service
though the appellant was appointed by the DGP.
According to him, the Special IGP More (PW4) was not
subordinate to the DGP. Consequently, the sanction
cannot be said to be invalid. He then submits that no
prejudice has been caused to the appellant on account of
any infirmity in the sanction order (Exh-30). The
learned A.P.P. supports the impugned judgment and order
and prays that the appeal may be dismissed.
12. There is no dispute that the tainted currency
12 criapl124-2008
notes of Rs.1000/-, which were produced by the
complainant in the office of Dy.S.P. Kolekar (PW3) at
the time of preparing pre-trap panchanama (Exh-18), were
found in the left side pocket of the pant of the
appellant. It is well settled that mere recovery of the
bribe amount is not sufficient to establish that the
public servant demanded and accepted the bribe and
committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and
13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.
Therefore, it will have to be seen whether the tainted
currency notes of Rs.1000/- reached the left side pocket
of the appellant in response to his demand.
13. There is no dispute that crime was registered
by the appellant in Police Station, Kaij on 9 th October,
2005 for the offences punishable under Section 279 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 184, 66 (1)
read with Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act against
Vaijnath, the brother of the complainant in connection
with the above numbered car owned by the complainant and
Vaijnath was to be arrested. The copy of the FIR is at
Exh-36. The said car was detained by the appellant and
the complainant being the registered owner thereof had
filed application in the Court at Kaij on 14th October,
13 criapl124-2008
2005 for release of the said car. As per the order of
the Court, reply of the appellant was called for vide
letter (Exh-37) dated 14th October, 2005.
14. As seen from the evidence of the complainant,
the first demand of bribe was made by the appellant on
13th October, 2005 at about 5.00 p.m. when the appellant
took the above numbered car to Police Station and asked
Vaijnath to pay Rs.2000/- for releasing him on bail and
releasing the car. Vaijnath has not been examined by
the prosecution. Therefore, the said demand cannot be
said to have been established.
15. The complainant deposes that on 14th October,
2005, he handed over the letter (Exh-37) to the
appellant in Police Station, Kaij and at that time, the
appellant demanded Rs.2000/- for releasing Vaijnath on
bail and giving reply for releasing the car as well. He
requested the appellant to reduce that amount and
ultimately, the appellant agreed to receive Rs.1000/-.
It was agreed that the said amount would be paid on 17 th
October, 2005.
16. The complainant deposes that on 17th October,
2005 at about 9.00 a.m., he went to Police Station, Kaij
14 criapl124-2008
and enquired with the appellant whether he had filed
reply or not. At that time also, the appellant asked
him whether he had brought money and also his brother
Vaijnath. The complainant told him that he would pay
the amount in the afternoon and his brother Vaijnath
would come after some time. Thereafter, the complainant
went to the office of ACB and filed complaint (Exh-11).
The contents of the complaint (Exh-11) corroborate the
version of the complainant in respect of the above
mentioned demands for bribe made by the appellant.
17. It has further come in the evidence of the
complainant that after the necessary preparations for
laying the trap were made in the office of ACB, panch
Ingole (PW2) and himself went on foot to the Police
Station. At that time also, the appellant enquired
whether he had brought Rs.1000/-. The complainant told
that the amount was with his brother and he was awaiting
for his brother. At that time, the appellant asked the
complainant to produce his brother alongwith the money
in the Court. In respect of this visit, there is some
variation in the evidence of panch Ingole (PW2) in
respect of the conversation between the appellant and
the complainant. However, panch Ingole (PW2) supports
15 criapl124-2008
the version of the complainant to the extent that the
appellant demanded Rs.1000/- from the complainant at
that time. He further states that the complainant
informed the appellant that he having Rs.500/- only and
on that, the appellant asked him to bring Rs.1000/-. In
my view, this variation does not go to the root of the
matter. The evidence of the complainant and panch Ingole
(PW2) is consistent in respect of reiteration of demand
of bribe by the appellant at that time also.
18. The complainant as well as panch Ingole (PW2)
depose that the appellant asked the complainant to come
to the Court. Thereafter, they went to the Court
alongwith other members of the raiding party and Dy.S.P.
Kolekar (PW3).
19. The complainant deposes that the appellant was
standing in front of Criminal Section of the Court. The
appellant asked him whether he had brought money. He
answered in the affirmative. Then the appellant demanded
money whereon he took out money from the pocket of his
shirt by his right hand and gave it to the appellant.
The complainant states that the appellant counted that
money and kept it in the left side pocket of his pant.
Thereafter, Ingole (PW2) gave the predetermined signal.
16 criapl124-2008
The other members of the raiding party and Dy.S.P.
Kolekar (PW3) came there immediately. The Police
Constables Dhole and Tambhare caught hold the hands of
the appellant.
20. As regards the demand and acceptance of bribe
money at the time of the trap, panch Ingole (PW2) states
that the complainant and himself went near the appellant
near Criminal Section room. The appellant asked the
complainant whether he had brought money. The
complainant answered in the affirmative. The complainant
took out the money by his right hand and gave it to the
appellant. The appellant received that amount and then
entered into the room. The appellant kept that amount
in the pocket of his pant. Thereafter, he gave
predetermined signal whereon Dy.S.P. Kolekar (PW3) and
other members of the raiding party immediately came
there and caught hold of the hands of the appellant.
21. The fact that after receiving the currency
notes from the complainant, the appellant counted them
prior to keeping them in the left side pocket of his
pant, is not stated by panch Ingole (PW2). The contents
of trap panchanama (Exh-19) corroborate the version of
17 criapl124-2008
panch Ingole (PW2) that after receiving money from the
complainant, the appellant kept it in the left side
pocket of his pant. The said panchanama does not
corroborate the version of the complainant that the
tainted currency notes were counted by the appellant.
The hands of the appellant were examined under the light
of ultraviolet lamp whereon the traces of the anthracene
powder were seen on the fingers of his left hand only
and not on his right hand fingers. This fact suggests
that the right hand fingers of the appellant did not
come into contact with the tainted currency notes. Had
the appellant counted those notes, the fingers of both
of his hands would have got smeared with anthracene
powder that was applied to the said notes. The absence
of anthracene powder on the right hand fingers of the
appellant clearly indicates that the appellant had not
counted the currency notes. It seems that there is some
addition in the evidence of the complainant about the
counting of notes by the appellant. This addition, in
my view, is not significant and will have to be
ignored, considering the evidence of Ingole (PW2),
which is corroborated by the contents of trap panchanama
(Exh-19).
18 criapl124-2008
22. From the evidence of the complainant, supported
by the evidence of panch Ingole (PW2), it is clear that
the appellant demanded bribe amount of Rs.1000/- from
the complainant and in response to that demand, the
complainant handed over the tainted currency notes of
Rs.1000/- to him.
23. Dy.S.P. Kolekar (PW3) states that after
receiving the predetermined signal about acceptance of
bribe by the appellant, panch No.2, other staff members
and himself rushed towards the appellant. He enquired
with Ingole (PW2) as to who accepted the money and who
was he. He further asked where the amount was kept.
Ingole (PW2) informed that the amount was accepted by
the appellant and was kept by him in the left side
pocket of his pant. Then he caught hold of both of the
hands of the appellant. He asked the complainant to
await outside the room. He further states that after
checking the hands of all the other members of the
raiding party, under the light of ultraviolet lamp to
show that there were no traces of anthracene powder
thereon, Police Constable Tambare caught hold of the
hands of the appellant. Thereafter his own hands were
19 criapl124-2008
examined under the light of ultraviolet lamp, whereon it
was confirmed that there was no anthracene powder
thereon. Thereafter, as per his direction, panch No.2
took out the bribe amount from the pocket of pant of the
appellant. His evidence finds corroboration from the
contents of trap panchanama (Exh-19). However, Ingole
(PW2) states that bribe amount was taken out by the
appellant himself from the pocket of his pant. In my
view, this statement seems to be an outcome of loss of
memory. As stated above, after receiving the signal of
acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant, Dy.S.P.
Kolekar (PW3) immediately rushed to the appellant and
caught hold of both of his hands. Then after the hands
of all the other members of the raiding party were
examined, Police Constable Tambare caught hold of the
hands of the appellant. In the circumstances, there was
no scope for the appellant to take out the bribe amount
from the left side pocket of his pant. I, therefore,
believe the evidence of Dy.S.P. Kolekar (PW3), which is
corroborated by the contents of panchanama (Exh-19) and
hold that after acceptance of the bribe money, the
appellant kept it in the left side pocket of his pant
and the said money was taken out subsequently by panch
No.2 and not by the appellant.
20 criapl124-2008
24. The appellant has come with a defence that the
complainant being aggrieved because of filing case in
respect of his car for the offence of carrying
passengers illegally, lodged false complaint against him
and thrusted the tainted currency notes into the left
side pocket of his pant at the time of the trap. In
support of his defence, the appellant examined himself
at Exh-68. He deposes that on 17th October, 2005 at
about 2.45 p.m., he had gone to the Court for seeking
custody of some accused persons involved in some other
crime and to file reply in the matter of release of car
of the complainant. At that time, two accused persons,
PHC Puri and other three constables were with him. Some
police personnel from Aurangabad also were with him. He
was in the verandah where the complainant came to him
and asked whether he had filed reply in respect of
release of the car. He told the complainant that the
reply has been given to the concerned clerk of the
Court. Thereafter, he was going to the concerned clerk
to enquire as to when the accused persons would be
called before the Court. At that time, the complainant
was walking with him from his left side. He then
realized that somebody inserted his hand into the left
21 criapl124-2008
side pocket of his pant. Therefore, he also inserted his
own hand in the pocket. At that time, he found that
somebody had inserted money in the pocket. He took out
that money from the pocket and at the same time, he was
caught hold of by the members of the raiding party.
25. The defence set up by the appellant does not
appear to be natural and probable. When the appellant,
who was working as a Police Sub-Inspector, was in the
Court premises besides the other police personnel of his
Police Station as well as form the Police Station of
Aurangabad. The complainant, a layman, would not have
thought of touching the body of the appellant much less
inserting anything into the pocket of the pant of the
appellant. When the appellant claims that the
complainant and himself were proceeding towards criminal
section to the clerk concerned, it would not have been
difficult for the appellant to catch hold the hands of
the complainant immediately after he kept the tainted
currency notes in the pocket of his pant. The
complainant certainly would not have dared to touch the
body of the appellant without his consent and
particularly for thrusting bribe money into the pocket
of his pant, since there was every possibility of his
22 criapl124-2008
getting caught hold of in the attempt. The consequences
thereof certainly would have been very serious and
dangerous for the complainant. The appellant himself
would have taken stern action against the complainant.
The other police personnel, who were in the Court
premises, certainly noticed the complainant while
thrusting bribe money into the pocket of pant of the
appellant. None of the police personnel, who allegedly
were nearby the appellant at the time of the trap, has
been examined by the appellant to show prima facie that
the complainant inserted something in the pocket of his
pant without his knowledge. All the above mentioned
circumstances make it difficult for one to accept the
defence set up by the appellant. He has not rebutted
the presumption laid down in Section 20 of the Act.
26. The evidence of the complainant supported by
panch Ingole (PW2) makes it sufficiently clear that the
appellant demanded Rs.1000/- from the complainant for
releasing the brother of the complainant on bail and
giving favourable reply in the matter of releasing the
above numbered car of the complainant. There is
sufficient evidence to show that the tainted currency
notes of Rs.1000/- were handed over by the complainant
23 criapl124-2008
to the appellant on being demanded by the appellant. The
tainted currency notes have been recovered from the
possession of the appellant. In the circumstances, the
presumption under Section 20 of the Act would be
attracted and it would have to be presumed that the
appellant accepted the tainted currency notes as
gratification as a motive or reward for discharging his
official duty as a Police Sub-Inspector in the matter of
releasing the brother of the complainant on bail and
giving reply for releasing the car of the complainant.
The appellant has failed to rebut the said presumption.
The defence set up by him is not natural and probable.
The prosecution has, thus, proved the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section
13 (1) (d) of the Act against the appellant.
27. Dy.S.P. Kolekar (PW3) (Exh-26) deposes that
after completion of investigation, he enquired with the
Superintendent of Police about the Authority competent
to appoint and remove the appellant from service. He
has produced the documents in respect of that
correspondence. He sent all the papers of investigation
to Special IGP, Aurangabad for obtaining sanction for
prosecution of the appellant.
24 criapl124-2008
28. Special IGP More (PW4) (Exh-29) deposes that he
being the Special IGP of Aurangabad Region was
appointing and removing Authority of the post of Police
Sub-Inspector. He admits that Director General of Police
appointed the appellant as Police Sub-Inspector.
However, he denied that he was not authorised to remove
the appellant from service. The prosecution has produced
letter (Exh-42), sent by the Superintendent of Police,
Beed to Dy.S.P. Kolekar wherein it was mentioned that
the appellant was appointed by the DGP. However, the
Special IGP, Aurangabad Region is competent to remove
the appellant from service. The learned A.P.P. submits
that Special IGP being the Authority competent to remove
the appellant from service, was competent to accord
sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The appellant
has not produced anything on record to show that Special
IGP, Aurangabad was not empowered to remove him from
service. Considering the positive evidence of Special
IGP More (PW4) coupled with the contents of letter (Exh-
42), it is clear that Special IGP More (PW4) was
competent to remove the appellant from service and
therefore, had an authority to accord sanction for
prosecution of the appellant.
25 criapl124-2008
29. Special IGP More (PW4) deposes that after
receiving the papers of investigation, he went through
those papers minutely and came to conclusion that it was
necessary to grant sanction as prima facie case was
disclosed about commission of the offences by the
appellant. Accordingly, he issued sanction order (Exh-
30). The sanction order (Exh-30) is quite exhaustive.
It gives details of the alleged acts committed by the
appellant with the Sections under which his prosecution
as required to be launched. All the papers of
investigation were placed before the Sanctioning
Authority. It is clear that the sanction order (Exh-30)
has been passed by the Special IGP More after going
through the papers of investigation and applying his
mind to the facts of the case. In the circumstances, I
do not find any infirmity or illegality in the sanction
order (Exh-30).
30. It may be noted that the appellant has not
challenged sanction order (Exh-30) on any ground, much
less on the ground that Special IGP More (PW4) was not
competent to accord sanction for his prosecution. The
appeal memo is totally silent about validity or
26 criapl124-2008
invalidity of the sanction order (Exh-30). Apart from
that, there is no whisper that there has been a failure
of justice because of any error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction order (Exh-30). In the
circumstances, in view of sub-section (3)(a) of section
19 of the Act, the finding recorded by the trial Court
holding the appellant guilty for the above-mentioned
offences cannot be interfered with on the ground of any
error, omission or irregularity in the sanction order
(Exh-30).
31. As stated above, the prosecution established
guilt of the appellant for the above mentioned offences.
The learned Special Judge rightly appreciated the
evidence and rightly held the appellant guilty for the
said offences. I subscribe to the findings recorded by
the learned Special Judge. The conviction of the
appellant for the above mentioned offences calls for no
interference.
32. The learned Special Judge has convicted the
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7
and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act with
rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months
27 criapl124-2008
respectively. Both the sentences have been ordered to
run concurrently. He has shown sufficient leniency to
the appellant in the matter of inflicting punishment.
Considering the nature of the offences established
against the appellant, in my view, the appellant does
not deserve for any more leniency. The sentence passed
against the appellant by the learned Special Judge,
therefore, needs no interference.
33. The appeal is devoid of any substance. It is
liable to be dismissed. In the result, I pass the
following order:-
O R D E R
(A) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(B) The appellant shall surrender to his bail bonds
by appearing before the trial Court within a period of
two weeks from today for suffering the sentence.
(C) In case the appellant fails to surrender before
the trial Court within the period of two weeks from
today, the trial Court shall issue coercive process
against him for securing his presence.
28 criapl124-2008
(D) Inform the trial Court accordingly.
(E) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/criapl124-2008
