Bombay High Court
Ashok Ramesh Giri vs Vinod Govind Badwaik on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 6.APEAL.563-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2019
( Ashok Ramesh Giri Vs. Vinod Govind Badwaik & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. Prashant A. Gode, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.3/State.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 13th JULY, 2022.
Heard Mr. Gode, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Karode, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP
for the respondent/State.
2. The appeal challenges the judgment dated
02.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Court,
Bhandara, whereby the accused/respondent Nos. 1 & 2
have been acquitted of the offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Mr. Gode, learned counsel
for the appellant/complainant submits, that the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained on the ground,
that it acquits the accused persons for lack of sanction.
He invites my attention to para 28 of the impugned
judgment, in which it has been held that the sanction
accorded by the Education Officer, Bhandara for the
2 6.APEAL.563-2019.odt
prosecution was not legal at all. Relying upon State of
Bihar and Others Vs. Rajmangal Ram, (2014) 11 SCC
388, it is submitted, that any irregularity, error or
omission in the sanction, would not vitiate the eventual
conclusion in the trial, including the conviction and
sentence.
3. Mr. Karode, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2, opposed the same and submits,
that the Education Officer was not a person who was in
law entitled to grant any sanction, and therefore,
supports the findings rendered in para 28.
4. It is an admitted position on record, that the
appellant/complainant was a Shikshak Sewak in Anand
Pre-primary School, Andhalgaon, run by Prashant
Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Andhalgaon and was
employed as such on 01.07.2007 and having completed
3 years to the said post from 01.07.2010, he continued to
be employed as an Assistant Teacher. The Management
had sent a proposal to the Education Officer for approval,
which was granted. Since, the appellant/complainant did
not receive pay for the period from 01.07.2010 to
31.01.2011, he approached the accused No. 1, who was
then working as a Head Master requesting him to draw
salary, whereupon it is claimed, that a demand was made
by the accused No. 1. It is claimed, that an assurance was
given by the appellant/complainant, based upon which,
the accused No. 1 drew the salary amounting
Rs. 1,16,000/- on 10.02.2011 and deposited it in the
account of the appellant/complainant. It is claimed, that
3 6.APEAL.563-2019.odt
a demand for illegal gratification of Rs. 10,500/- was
made by the accused No.1 for the above purpose. It is
further contended, that since the appellant/complainant
had not received Rs. 3,000/- as honorarium for the
month of November, 2008, he again approached to the
accused No.1 on 15.02.2011 with application in writing,
whereupon the earlier demand was reiterated. It is also
alleged, that the accused No.2 had made a demand of
Rs. 4,00,000/- in order to continue him in the post of
Assistant Teacher. On the basis of a complaint lodged,
the prosecution was initiated. The learned Special Court,
by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused
persons, not only on merits, holding that on the point of
demand and acceptance, there was no evidence on
record against both the accused persons, but also for lack
of a legal sanction.
5. Insofar as, the contention that the sanction
was legal, it is necessary to note, that sanction at
Exh. 101 to prosecute was accorded by the Education
Officer, Bhandara. Under the provisions of Section 19 (1)
(c) of the P.C. Act, in the instant case, the sanction ought
to have been accorded by the competent Authority to
remove from the Office, which in this case, was the
Management and not the Education Officer. The learned
Special Court therefore has rightly arrived at the
conclusion at para 28, that the sanction accorded by the
Education Officer, Bhandara, was no sanction in the eyes
of law, as the sanction ought to have been accorded by
the Management, who was the competent Authority to
4 6.APEAL.563-2019.odt
remove the accused No.1.
6. Rajmangal Ram (Supra), was a case before
recording the evidence, at which stage, the Court has
held that any error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction, would not vitiate the trial. In this matter, the
trial was not stalled on account of any sanction. It was
permissible and open for the prosecution during the
course of the trial, to have obtained sanction from the
Authority as indicated in Section 19 (1) (c) of the P.C.
Act, however that has not been done, considering which,
I do not see any merit in the appeal filed by the
appellant/complainant. No other contention was raised
except the issue of sanction which has been dealt with as
indicated above. The appeal is therefore without any
merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
7. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
SD. Bhimte
Signed By:SHRIKANT
DAMODHAR BHIMTE
Signing Date:14.07.2022 19:06
