JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 24-11-2003, passed by the Court of Special Judge, Pune, acquitting respondent (accused) of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (P.C. Act 1988).

2. As none appeared for respondent, this court appointed Mr. Anuj Desai as Amicus Curaie. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Mr. Desai, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment.

3. Accused is alleged to have taken illegal gratification of Rs.1300/- on 21-1-1995. I do not wish to go into other details because one of the grounds apart from the merits, which the Trial Court considered while acquitting accused, was the issue of sanction. The Trial Court concluded that the sanction order Exhibit 24 was not legal and valid. If that was the conclusion arrived at, the court need not have gone into the merits of the case.

4. Learned APP Ms Malhotra submitted relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2014 CRI L.J. 930 that when an error or omission or irregularity in sanction is not fatal, the court should ignore such error or omission or irregularity. Ms Malhotra submitted that unless the court comes to a conclusion that the defect or irregularity has caused failure of justice, the court need not interfere.

5. The sanctity of sanction has been considered and laid down by the Apex court in Balbhadra Parashar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 1554. The Apex court held that grant of sanction is not empty formality and order of consent should not be construed in a pedantic manner and the purpose for which order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind, and there has to be application of mind in support of the sanction. Paras-5 & 6 read as under :-

''5. It is contended that the grant of sanction is not an empty formality and there has to be application of mind in support of the said sanction. We have been commended to Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 wherein a two-Judge Bench while dealing with grant of sanction has observed:-

"18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See also Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124, and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222. )

19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanct