Important Point - Other two proceedings filed by the accused stand dismissed.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of both the sides, heard for final disposal.

2. Writ Petition No. 539 of 2016 is filed to challenge the order made at Exh.46, in Special Case No. 84 of 2013 by the learned Judge of the Special Court, Dhule under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Writ Petition No. 881 of 2016 is also filed to challenge the same order, but only part of the order is under challenge and the relief of discharge is also claimed in this petition by the accused. Similarly Criminal Application No. 540 of 2016 is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by other accused for similar relief. Criminal Application No. 5085 of 2016 is filed by the State for permission to amend the contentions made in Writ Petition No. 539 of 2016. The State wants to make additional contentions in view of the original file of sanction that was not brought before the Trial Court and as no contention is made in the petition about the said file.

3. Accused No.1 was working as R.T.O. in Dhule R.T.O. Office at the relevant time. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were working as Assistant Cashiers. Accused Nos.4 to 8 were working as R.T.O. Agents for accused Nos.1 to 3. There is allegation against accused Nos.1 to 3, the Public Servants that they were illegally collecting money from drivers and the transporters, when their vehicles were entering Maharashtra State at R.T.O. check-post Hadakhed, Tal. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. They had given name to this illegal gratification as “Entry”. The action was taken on the basis of complaint made by one Kuldipsingh against the accused persons. The said amount was demanded from him also. He made complaint and trap was led. There is allegation that accused No.4 – Agent, collected an amount of Rs.300/- from Kuldipsing on 01.12.2011. During action, when the amount already collected by these persons at the spot was checked and the amount was verified with the receipt book showing amount legally received, it was noticed that an amount of Rs.14,400/- more was collected up to 15.40 hours by these persons on that day. After recording statements, preparing panchanama etc. and completion of the investigation, the matter was sent to the State Government for obtaining sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), against accused Nos.1 to 3. As per the permission sought, the sanction came to be given in respect of offences punishable under sections 7,12,13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. The case is also filed for offence punishable 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, as per the sanction order.

4. The charge is framed. At Exh.7, application was moved by accused No.1 and at Exh.8 application was moved by accused Nos.2 and 3 for deciding the validity of sanction order produced along with the charge-sheet. The prayer was made to decide the point as a preliminary point. The learned Judge of the Trial Court allowed the application and decided to record the evidence on sanction first and take decision on it. Both the sides were allowed to lead evidence on this point. The prosecution examined the Joint Secretary, Home Department of the State Government and he is cross-examined by the defence counsel. The Trial Court Judge has held that the sanction is not valid and the operative part of the Trial Court decision is as follows :-

“1. Sanction accorded by P.W. No. 1 against the accused Nos.1,2 and 3 is not found legal, valid and proper.

2. However, the competent authority i.e. the Secretary is hereby permitted to issue fresh sanction order against accused No.1, and Transport Commissioner is hereby permitted to issue fresh sanction order against accused nos.2 and 3 and proceed afresh against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 from the stage of taking cognizance of the offence and in accordance with the law.

3. The competent authority shall comply the above order within the period of three months from the date of this order.”

5. The Joint Secretary has giv