IMPORTANT POINT
While granting sanction the officer concerned is not required to indicate that he had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at the satisfaction for granting sanction

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment of acquittal passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Shahdol, in Special Case No.5/87, acquitting the Respondents in respect of offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the “1947 Act”.

3. According to the prosecution case, the complainant, Ramavtar, submitted an application in the Office of the District Excise Officer, Shahdol, for a licence to collect Mahua. At that time, Ghanshyamdas @ G.D. Sharma had been serving as Special Inspector, Excise and the sole Respondent herein, Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi, was serving as a Clerk in the said establishment. The complainant, Ramavtar, claimed to have deposited a sum of Rs.200/- for the licence fee in the State Bank and upon inquiry from the said Ghanshyamdas, he allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification for getting the licence. Eventually, a written complaint was made by Ramavtar to the Lokayukt (Rewa) of the Special Police, Rewa, which was received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 04.06.1986.

4. At this juncture, it may be noted that Ghanshyamdas, who had been made the Respondent No.1 in the Special Leave Petition, died during the pendency of the petition and the proceedings against him have, therefore, abated.

5. Once the written complaint was made, the Office of the Special Police Establishment arranged for a trap and 20 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the right pocket of the kurta worn by Ramavtar. He was directed to hand over the treated currency notes to Ghanshyamdas and was also cautioned against touching the currency notes before they were handed over to Ghanshyamdas.

6. According to the prosecution case, the notes in question were handed over by the complainant, Ramavtar, to Ghanshyamdas, who kept 18 of the notes with himself, while giving two of the notes to the sole Respondent, Harishankar. Immediately thereafter, on being given a pre-arranged signal, the trap party came inside and apprehended both the Respondents. Their hands were washed with a solution of Sodium Carbonate, upon which the water turned pink in colour. A charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Judge, who, after going through the charge-sheet, framed charges against the accused punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and also Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial Judge acquitted the Respondents not on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, but upon holding that the sanction which had been accorded for the prosecution of the accused, was improper and had been given without application of mind. Though, the learned Special Judge found the trap to have been proved, he acquitted the Respondents on the ground that the sanction to prosecute the accused had been granted without application of mind.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the prosecuting agencies filed Criminal Appeal No.294 of 1994 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, by its judgment and order dated 31st March, 2008, reiterated the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal upon holding that the sanction accorded by the State Government under Section 6 of the Act suffered from non- application of mind, since in the sanction order only the facts of the prosecution case had been mentioned and no reason had been given for according sanction in regard thereto. In the absence of a valid sanction, the High Court dropped the proceedings against Ghanshyamdas, against whom the appeal has abated. As far as the sole Respondent, Harishankar Bhagwan Prasad Tripathi, is concerned, the High Court held that in the absence o