The legal principle established is that the authority granting sanction must be competent and free from bias, and defects in the sanction can be fatal to the prosecution if they cause a failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Greater Bombay vide judgment and order dated 4th February, 2012 in Special Case No.31 of 2010, convicted and sentenced, the appellant as under:

(i) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) and ;

(ii) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, against which this appeal is preferred.

2. Briefly stated, prosecution’s case is that the complainant had applied for authorization/batch, to the Regional Transport Office (RTO) for which police verification report was needed. In May, 2009, complainant enquired with the local police station about the verification report. He was informed that papers were sent to CID Branch, Bombay. Whereupon he visited CID office. He was directed to contact accused. Accordingly, accused, gave his contact number to complainant and asked him to meet on 10th June, 2009. On this date, he was told that his file/papers were missing and may have to reconstruct the file afresh but for which accused demanded Rs.300/- from him. On 11th June, 2009, complainant narrated the facts to the officer, Anti Corruption Bureau and filed written complaint. To verify the demand, officer asked complainant to contact the accused on his cell phone. Speaker of mobile phone was activated. Thus, after verifying the demand and upon drawing verification and pre-trap panchanama, raiding party proceeded to Mulund where the complainant and the accused were to meet. At Shri Krishna Vilas Hotel, Mulund, Complainant and the accused had tea together. Complainant enquired about the report where after accused gave report/papers to him and demanded Rs.300/-. After paying Rs.300/- upon pre-decided signal, raiding party caught hold the accused. Since trap was laid in the hotel, Shivgan officer took the accused to the nearest police station where tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. Post-trap panchanamas were drawn. After completing investigation, final report was filed.

3. The Additional Commissioner, Special Crime Branch, Mr. Dumbre granted previous sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 12th March, 2010.

4. The Trial Court upon appreciating the prosecution’s evidence, convicted the appellant as aforesaid and hence, this appeal.

5. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pethe, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Questions, fall for my consideration are;

(a) Whether previous sanction granted by Mr. Dumbre, Additional Commissioner, Special Crime Branch on 12th March, 2010, Exhibit 19 was “authority competent” to remove accused from his office ?

(b) If Mr. Dumbre was not competent to grant the sanction, was it, an ‘error’, ‘omission’ or ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 19 read with Explanation (a) appended thereto;

AND

(i) Whether appellant/accused had objected to competency of Mr. Dumbre to grant sanction at the earlier stage in the proceedings ? ;

AND

(ii) Whether such an error, omission, irregularity had occasioned failure of justice ? ;

(c) Whether prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt, that accused demanded and accepted Rs.300/-, as illegal gratification for issuing character report to the complainant ?

7. Before answering aforesaid questions, it may be stated that the appellant is a ‘constable’ within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Maharashtra Police Act. It reads as under:

“(4) Constable means police officer of the lowest grade.”

8. Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956 (“Rules” for short) regulates the punishments of police officers and all below the rank of Inspector of Police in the State of Bombay and app