RAJENDRA TATOBA MAGDUM vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(Bom) 74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)
RAJENDRA TATOBA MAGDUM - Applicant
Versus

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 346 of 2006
Decided on 17-1-2007
Advocates appeared
For applicant: S. R. Chitnis, Senior Advocate with Ms. V. R. Raje
For State: Rajesh More, A.P.P.
For C.B.I. : J. C. Satpute

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Order of sanction for prosecution - Order should speak for itself - Not to be so elaborate like an order of Court containing detailed reasons - A sanction order showing prima facie application of mind is a valid sanction order. - At the outset, the Supreme Court has time and again observed that a sanction order should speak for itself. A sanction order showing prima facie application of mind is a valid sanction order. It is not necessary to mention in the sanction order that the sanctioning authority or any one on his behalf has scrutinised the records and arrived at subjective satisfaction that sanction is necessary. While it is true that the prosecution is bound to prove that valid sanction is granted by the sanctioning authority, it is not as if the sanction order should be so elaborate like an order of Court containing detailed reasons. Ultimately the object of grant of sanction is that the authority giving the sanction should be able to consider the evidence and material before it comes to a conclusion that prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Sanction for prosecution - Accused, a Government servant charged with demanding and accepting bribe - Accused, a Range Forest Officer in Forest Department of State Government sent on deputation to JNPT as Assistant Manager (Environment), Port and Planning Department - Alleged offences committed during course of such deputation - Accused a permanent employee of State Government - Sanction order by State Government cannot be found fault with at all. - In the present case, it is not disputed before me that the sanction order is by a competent officer of the State Government viz., Joint Secretary, Range and Forest Department. The issue was from a different angle viz., whether Government of Maharashtra was competent to grant sanction. The observations in Chari ’s case ought to be considered in the light of the contentions raised. The Supreme Court clarifies that sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6 which is pari materia to Section 19 of P.C. Act, deal with persons permanently employed in connection with the affairs of the State Government or the Central Government. The applicant permanently employed by the Maharashtra State is undisputed services being placed at the disposed of JNPT on deputation, then the order of sanction cannot be faulted at all.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Sanction for prosecution - Order of - Legality of - Case pending since 1998 - Legality of order of sanction granted challenged in year 2006 - Court decided application raising challenge to legality of order since issue of jurisdiction was involved. - In the present case, since the argument was that the sanction order was illegal that I have gone into the rival contentions. To my mind, the applicant has raised this contention only to delay the trial in the Special Case which is pending since 1998. To make an application and raise an issue of sanction therein in the year 2006, itself would show the intention of the applicant. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that the order of sanction of the applicant is legal, valid and proper and the learned Special Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction nor his conclusion can be termed as perverse or vitiated by non application of mind so as to call for interference in the revisional and inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and is heard.

2. This criminal revision application is directed against the order below Exh.34 in Special Case No.8 of 1998. The order under challenge was delivered on 23rd June 2006 and the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) Raigad held that the order of sanction for prosecution of the present applicant-original accused is legal, valid and proper and the trial can proceed further in pursuance of the same.

3. It is aggrieved by this order that the present revision application is filed.

4. Brief facts leading to the impugned order are, that the applicant original accused before me, is prosecuted and facing trial for offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1), (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P. C. Act"). The proceedings are in pursuance of a police report filed by Anti Corruption Bureau, Thane. The summons was issued against the petitioner and he filed an application, Exh.34 praying for discharge. The issue of discharge was argued on the basis that the applicant while functioning as Asstt. Manager, Port Planning Department, Environment Section of JNPT during the month of January 1997 abused his official position inasmuch as he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from Mr. Uday Dinkar Sathe, Manager of M/s Unique Nursery, Chinchawad, Pune for certifying bills of Unique Nursery for payment and for not raising objections to the said bills which M/s Unique had submitted for the execution of the contract work pertaining to maintenance of gardens, lawns, trees, shrubs, arboriculture and horticulture works for Port and JNPT township areas. It is alleged that Mis Unique Nursery, Chinchawad, Pune had been awarded two contracts of arboriculture and horticulture works for port areas and JNPT Township areas and subsequently the contract for port area work was extended by issuing another work order. On 10th January 1997 at about 11.30 hrs., the said Shri Uday Sathe, Manager of M/s Unique Nursery had submitted two bills of Rs. 2,61,413.84 for the period from 28th November 1996 to 27th December 1996 of Township area and another bill of Rs. 1,71,958.60 for the period from 1st December 1996 to 31st December 1996 for Port Area in respect of execution of the aforesaid contract work. Accused while functioning as such was supposed to certify the aforesaid two bills for payments by the Finance Department after satisfying that the same were in order. On 10th January' 1997 the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 75,000/- from the said Uday Sathe, Manager M/s Unique Nursery, when the latter contacted the former in connection with the aforesaid two bills submitted in the office. The accused agreed to accept illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from the said Uday Sathe for certifying the aforesaid two bills and for not raising any queries thereon. On 13th January 1997 the accused repeated the aforesaid demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from the said Uday Sathe, Manager, Unique Nursery for the aforesaid purpose and agreed to accept the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 14th January 1997. On 14th January 1997 the accused in pursuance of the aforesaid demand accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/- from the said Uday Sathe for the aforesaid purpose. The said acts on the part of accused constitute offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P. C. Act, 1988.

5. The order of sanction issued on 5th May 1998 proceeds on the basis that the applicant was initially appointed in the Forest Department of the State Government as Range Forest Officer and sent on deputation to JNPT as Assistant Manager (Environment) Port and Planning Department. The prosecution proceeds on the basis that the sanction order is legal, valid and proper because although the applicant was sent on deputation to JNPT his initial appointment is by the State of Maharashtra as Rang

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(Bom) 74

Cases Referred (5)