Back
2007 Supreme(Bom) 506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Shri Vilas V. Sanghai Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondents.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 359 OF 2003 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 289 OF 2003
Decided on: 09/04/2007.
Advocate Appeared
Mr. Prakash Shah for the petitioner in W.P. No. 359/2003.
Mr. Arjun Wadkar for the petitioner in W.P.No.289/2003.
Mr. R.M. Nakhwa, Learned A.P.P. for State.
The court emphasized the importance of preventing corruption and bribery among public servants, and the need to interpret the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act liberally to advance its object and purpose.
Headnote:
Sanction - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 12 - The court discussed the application of Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat. The court found that the Sanctioning Authority had not been influenced by any observation of the Special Judge and had granted the order of sanction after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case is made out. The court held that the Special Judge was not exercising any inherent powers but merely made some observations during the course of rejecting the prosecution’s application for closing the proceedings. The court concluded that the orders granting sanction were in public interest and in tune with the object and purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the Writ Petitions failed and the rule was discharged.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of corruption and bribery against the petitioners, who were public servants. The Special Judge rejected the application of the prosecution for closing the case and referred the matter back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority. The Sanctioning Authority subsequently granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sanctioning Authority had not been influenced by any observation of the Special Judge and had granted the order of sanction after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case is made out. The court held that the Special Judge was not exercising any inherent powers but merely made some observations during the course of rejecting the prosecution’s application for closing the proceedings. The court concluded that the orders granting sanction were in public interest and in tune with the object and purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the Writ Petitions failed and the rule was discharged.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the application of the prosecution for closing the case, the referral of the matter back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority, and the subsequent grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the Sanctioning Authority had not been influenced by any observation of the Special Judge and had granted the order of sanction after satisfying itself that a prima-facie case is made out. The court held that the Special Judge was not exercising any inherent powers but merely made some observations during the course of rejecting the prosecution’s application for closing the proceedings. The court concluded that the orders granting sanction were in public interest and in tune with the object and purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions failed and the rule was discharged.
1. Both petitions involve identical questions of fact and law and were heard together. They are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Writ Petition No. 359 of 2003 invokes jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is directed against an order dated 7.5.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2002 by Special Judge Mumbai in Complaint ACB/BMU Criminal No. 29 of 2000 and the Sanction Order dated 6.12.2002 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Mumbai.
3. The Petitioner in the first petition is a Senior Inspector of Police and at the time of the filing of the petition was attached to Thane Railway Police Station. He joined the Maharashtra police in 1975 as Police Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, his services were made over to Bombay police in 1977 on the same post. It is the case of the petitioner, that, he had a successful career of 27 years of Police service. The same is clean and unblemished.
4. It is alleged that one Altaf Kadir Shaikh had purchased Shop No.1, 63/65, Sayed House, Cadel Road, Mahim, Mumbai-16 in October 1999 from one Khalid Ahmed Basekhan. In June, 2000 one Iqbal claimed rights in his shop and alongwith Khalid Ahmed Basekhan started harassing and threatening Altaf Kadir Shaikh. Altaf Kadir Shaikh also received threats from unknown persons. He lodged a N.C. at Mahim Police Station. The complainant Ahmed Ismail Shaikh @ Raja Shaikh was helping the complainant Altaf and therefore he also received threats.
5. On 16.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs the complainant Ahmed alongwith Altaf Shaikh attended the Mahim Police Station and as per the instructions of P.I.Shri Sanghai, PSI Shinde recorded the statement of Altaf Shaikh.
6. The Complainant came to know that an offence has been registered at Mahim Police Station against him and three others. PSI Rajendra Naghbire had registered at Mahim police station, C.R.No. 230 of 2000 under Section 454, 457, 380, 451, 506(II), 34, 120(B), I.P.C. r/w. 23, 25 Arms Act on complaint of Shri. Mohanbhai Khanchandani on 17.7.2000. The further investigation of this case was handed over to P.I.Sanghai as per the orders of Sr.P.L.Jedhe of Mahim Police Station. After confirmation on 20.7.2000 at 16.30 hrs, the complainant alongwith Altaf Shaikh met D.C.P. Zone IV, Mumbai Shri Kadam and informed him about the offence registered against them and submitted representation to DCP Zone IV. On the same day at 19.00 hrs the complainant met P.I. Shri Sanghai at Mahim police Station, P.I. Sanghai called PSI Shinde. At that time P.I. Sanghai told the complainant that Altaf Shaikh would not get the shop valued Rs.40,00,000/- so easily. In order to avoid arrest of complainant, Altaf Shaikh and 2 others, an amount Rs.20,00,000/- be paid as bribe. After discussion the bribe amount was reduced to 10,00,000/-. The complainant showed his inability to pay the bribe amount. Therefore, PSI Shinde told the complainant to come after 2-3 days.
7. At 19.30 hrs the complainant was produced before Sr.P.I.Shri Jedhe. The complainant has stated that Sr.P.I. Jedhe told the complainant that his work will be done and he will have to pay the amount as per the say of PI Sanghai and the complainant was allowed to go.
8. When the complainant attended Mahim Police Station on 25.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs as per the call from PSI Shinde, he met PI Sanghai. Thereafter PSI Shinde was called by P.I. Sanghai. P.I. Sanghai then demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for not arresting the complainant and others. Over this the complainant agreed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- in four instalments and further agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as first installment on 26.7.2000. PSI Shinde told the complainant to come alone and to bring Rs.50,000/- at Mahim police Station after 6.00 p.m. on 26.7.2000.
9. The complainant accompanied by panch witness Shri Dhumal met P.I. Sanghai at Main gate of Mahim Police Station at 18.25 hrs. At that ti
