Failure to prove the validity of the sanction vitiates the trial and leads to acquittal

1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned Special Judge, Wardha, on 18.3.2002 in Special Case No. 6 of 1997.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under:

(a) In April 1995, the respondent was Sub Divisional Officer and Rent Controller. He was seized of the matter that was filed against the complainant by Vishal Kumar. In this case, one amendment application was pending for adjudication and in order to decide the application in favour of the complainant, as alleged by the complainant, the respondent initially demanded from the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was reduced to Rs.7,000/-. The complainant agreed to pay the said amount as illegal gratification and payments of Rs.3,000/-and Rs.2,000/- were made as alleged by the complainant on 7.12.1994 and 1.4.1995. These amounts were paid at about 5-45 a.m. when the respondent was on his usual morning walk. The remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- was agreed to be paid shortly. The case was fixed for hearing the arguments on 20.4.1995 and since the respondent, it is alleged, kept on demanding payment of remaining amount on or before that date, and as the complainant was not ready to oblige the respondent, he lodged a complaint against the respondent with Anti Corruption Bureau on 19.4.1995.

(b) The complaint was taken down in writing and it was decided that the trap would be laid to catch the respondent red handed while accepting the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/-. The trap was to be made in the morning of 28.4.1995. Accordingly, the trap was laid in presence of panch no.1 while panch no. 2 stayed away at some distance from the spot of the incident. The respondent was alleged to have made the demand of remaining bribe amount and accordingly it was also paid to him by the complainant in the presence of panch witness no.1. After the signal was given by the complainant, members of the trap party reached near the place where the respondent had gone as a part of his morning walk and the bribe amount was recovered from left side pocket of Nehru shirt worn by him. Fingers of right hand of the respondent were tested and the solution turned violet when the fingers were dipped in the solution. The bribe amount delivered to and accepted by the respondent was seized. Seizure memo and panchanama were prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, sanction was obtained and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against the respondent.

3. As the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, he was tried in accordance with law. After considering the evidence available on record and hearing both the sides the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove that the sanction given by the Deputy Secretary to the Government to prosecute the respondent was not valid and, therefore, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid offences by his judgment and order dated 18.3.2022.

4. Being aggrieved by the same the State has preferred the present appeal with the leave of this Court.

5. I have heard Shri Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. I have carefully gone through the judgment and order and also the evidence available on record.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that when P.W.8 Debashish Chakraborty admitted that he was not the competent authority to record the sanction, such admission ought to have been considered in the light of his entire evidence. He submits that this witness has also stated that it is the Governor who is the appointing and removing authority and the orders regarding appointment or removal of Government servants of the rank of Class I are issued in the name of the Governor. He further subm