The State Of Maharashtra vs Priyanka Satyawan Kalsekar
2021 Latest Caselaw 9027 Bom

                                                               22 apeal 666-13.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2013

      The State of Maharashtra                   ..Appellant

                   v/s.

      Priyanka Satyawan Kalsekar                 ..Respondent/s

      Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the Appellant-State.
      Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for the Respondent.

                          CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : JULY 12, 2021.

P.C.

1. This is an appeal under Section 378 (3) filed by the State

challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated

29.02.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, (Anti

Corruption) Thane in Special Case No. 2 of 2006. By the

impugned judgment, the learned Judge has acquitted the

Respondent-accused of offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.

13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the first informant

Rakeshkumar Jain, who was running a factory in the name and

pps 1 of 5 22 apeal 666-13.doc

style of 'Sara Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd'; had received notice

relating to payment of Cess for the year 1999 to 2003. The first

informant approached the Respondent, who was working as

Superintendent/Cess Officer in Cess Department, Koparkhairane,

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Thane. The first informant

claims that the Respondent had stated that she would impose

penalty of 5% instead of 1% cess and wanted to know how much

money he would pay for not imposing the penalty and cess. After

negotiations, the first informant agreed to pay Rs.13,000/- on the

next date and balance amount of Rs.5000/- after completion of

work. The Respondent thereafter prepared Order of Cess for two

years and handed over the same to the first informant and stated

that she would give Orders for remaining two years on payment of

Rs.13,000/- on the following day.

3. The first informant approached the office of ACB, Thane. A

pre-trap panchanama was prepared and the first informant was

given currency notes of Rs.13,000/-, which were smeared with

anthracene powder in presence of panchas. It is stated that the

Respondent had received currency notes of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees

pps 2 of 5 22 apeal 666-13.doc

Thirteen Thousand Only) and kept the same on the file on her

table. Her hands were checked in ultra violet light and green

coloured rays were found on her hand. The post-trap

panchanama was drawn and the currency notes were seized in

presence of panchas. Accordingly the crime was registered and

Respondent was arrested for committing the aforesaid offence.

4. Prosecution examined 6 witnesses. After considering the

evidence on record, the learned Special Judge acquitted the

Respondent of the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section

13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act interalia on the ground that

there is discrepancy as regards demand and acceptance of bribe

amount and for want of valid sanction. Being aggrieved by the

said order of acquittal, the Appellant State has preferred this

Appeal.

5. Heard Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State and learned

Counsel Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for the Respondent. I have

perused the records.

pps                                                                     3 of 5
                                                             22 apeal 666-13.doc

6. It is not necessary to dwell on the merits of the case as the

appeal must succeed on a short point of law i.e. want of valid

sanction by the Sanctioning Authority. It is not in dispute that the

Respondent is a public servant and that she was drawing salary of

more than Rs.1000/-. Sub Clause (a) of Section 56 of Bombay

Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, as it stood prior to

2011 amendment, stipulated that no Municipal Officer or servant

whose monthly salary, exclusive of allowances exceeded one

thousand rupees, could be dismissed by the Commissioner

without the previous approval of the Standing Committee.

7. In the instant case, P.W. 4, the Municipal Commissioner has

admitted in his cross examination that he had not obtained

previous approval of the Standing Committee before granting

sanction under Section 56(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal

Corporation Act. He has also admitted that the papers at Exhibit

11 and 12 and several documents, reference to which is made on

post trap panchanama, were not forwarded to him and that he had

no occasion to see the said papers.

pps                                                                      4 of 5
                                                                                 22 apeal 666-13.doc

8. It is thus evidence that the relevant documents were not

placed before the Sanctioning Authority. Hence there was no

occasion for the Santioning Authority to peruse and exmine the

full facts before granting the sanction. It need not be emphasied

that grant of sanction is not an empty formality, but is an

obligation to be discharged, only after having full knowledge of

the material facts and with due application of mind. In the instant

case, the Sanctioning Authority has granted sanction without

considering the relevant documents, which reflects non application

of mind. The ld. Judge has taken note of this fact and has rightly

held that the sanction is invalid. Moreover, the dismissal is

without prior approval of the Standing Committee as mandated by

Section 56 of the Act.

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this is not a

fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal has no

merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Digitally signed by PRASANNA P PRASANNA P SALGAONKAR SALGAONKAR Date:

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) 2021.08.04 13:43:51 +0530

pps 5 of 5