IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires the sanctioning authority to apply its mind to the facts of the case.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. This appeal by the accused under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is against the conviction recorded against him by the learned trial court. During the relevant period, he was a Work Inspector, Grade II in the office of Executive Director, A.P Housing Board Division Office, Visakhapatnam. On the prosecution initiated by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam Range, he was charged for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as Act, 1988). Section 7 is about a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Section 13 is about criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13(1)(d) provides that a public servant is said to commit an offence of criminal misconduct if he by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Section 13(2) provides the punishment for criminal misconduct. The learned Special Judge for ACB cases - Cum - III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam duly tried the case as per C.C.No.7 of 2004 and by a judgment dated 27.09.2008 found this appellant/ accused not guilty for the offence under section 7. However, it found him guilty for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. After affording an opportunity of due hearing to the appellant/accused, it convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. By the present appeal, the convict impugns the said judgment.

2. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for appellant and Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, the learned standing counsel for ACB – Cum – Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/ State submitted their arguments. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of State.

3. Excepting the crime incident, all the other facts are not in dispute. The learned trial court gave a very detailed account of all the facts. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board constructed houses at Rathnagiri, HB Colony, Pothinamallayya Palem, Visakhapatnam District. One such house is MIG II-99 bearing Door No.15-149. It was allotted to PW.1. Ex.P5 sale deed dated 16.11.2002 was executed by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board in favour of PW.1 and this sale deed was registered on 18.11.2002. The sale consideration was Rs.77,879/-. The execution of registration of sale deed took place only after PW.1 paid the entire sale consideration. At the relevant time, the appellant/ accused was endowed with duties which include attending the registration and delivering the registered sale deeds to the allotees/ beneficiaries such as PW.1. It was in the context of these facts, the crime incident allegedly emerged.

4. Two more facts are to be noticed here. For the house, originally the prescribed area was 111.11 square yards. It seemed that for some of the plots abutting the houses, a small piece of extra land was there. In such circumstances, the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board offered to sell that extra piece of land to the allotees. For the house allotted to PW.1, there was 65.97 square yards of site abutting it and the worth evaluated to it was Rs.23,090/-. Thus, the total extent of the land became 177.08 square yards. She had paid the extra price also for that. Therefore, for the entire extent of 177.08 square yards, Ex.P5 registered sale deed was executed in her favour. Another fact to be noticed is that during the relevant time, there was a scheme under which the allotees were given a gift cheque of Rs.1,000/- by the Board. Ex.P2 is the said gift cheque. Ex.P3 is the receipt signed by PW.1 in token of the receipt of the said gift cheque.

5. Coming to the material facts, the allegations are that after Ex.P5 sale deed was registered on 18.11.2002, the appellant/ accused made a telephone call to PW.1 on 22.11.20