Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires only a prima facie satisfaction of the authority, and minor procedural omissions do not invalidate the proceedings if justice is not compromised.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The judgment and order dated 3rd September, 2024¹[impugned order] of a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, is under challenge in this criminal appeal. By the impugned order, the learned Judge dismissed a criminal appeal²[Crl. Appeal No. 303 of 2004] carried by the appellant from the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26th April, 2004 of the Special Judge, Parbhani³[Special Court] in Special Case No.05/2000. Upon maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988⁴[PC Act], the learned Judge also upheld the punishment of R.I. of two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 , and R.I. of a year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 , with default stipulation, imposed on the appellant.

3. The facts giving rise to the incident of the offence, the trap proceedings and other factual details have been noted in details by the Special Court as well as by the High Court. We do not consider it necessary to repeat the same here.

4. The conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed on him are questioned by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the appellant, by raising the following legal contentions:

i. sanction to prosecute was mechanically granted;

ii. investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police (PW-4), although in terms of the statutory mandate contained in Section 17 of the PC Act, no officer lower in rank than a Deputy Superintendent of Police can investigate the crime;

iii. the demand was not proved and the conviction is indefensible having regard to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731; and

iv. one of the seizure witnesses was related to the complainant.

5. Ms. Arora, in the alternative, submitted that the incident being more than 25 years old and the appellant by passage of time having become a septuagenarian, the Court may consider altering the sentence, if it were not inclined to disturb the conviction, so that at this age the appellant is not made to suffer any imprisonment.

6. In support of her contention, Ms. Arora referred to an order dated 23rd January, 2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in H.P. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.1466 of 2017 in a case also arising out of a conviction under the PC Act. There, taking into consideration the facts that the appellant was a sexagenarian, that the occurrence took place in 2007 and that he had also been dismissed from service, the coordinate Bench in the peculiar circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, modified the sentence to 15 days imprisonment. She prayed for similar indulgence.

7. Per contra, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel for the respondent-State, contended that the findings returned by the Special Court and the High Court are based on the evidence led in the trial and having regard to the answers given by the appellant to the questions in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁷[Cr. PC], there could be little doubt that he had demanded and accepted bribe and, therefore, was guilty of the charges. She also submitted that the appellant had not spent a single night in custody and in light of the fact that maximum sentence permitted by