The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of the sanction granted under Section 19 of the PC Act is crucial, and any irregularity in the sanction order, if gross in nature, can result in failure of justice and lead to the quashing of the conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Court of Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Pune by the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2004 passed in Special Case No.25 of 2001, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5,000-- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months separately for both the offences. It is against the conviction and sentence, this appeal is preferred.

2. Heard Mr. Tajane, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dabke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. This is a trap case, in which the appellant was alleged to have accepted the amount of Rs.1,500--, a illegal gratification while working as ‘Senior Clerk’ in the office of the Executive Engineer, Implementation Wing, Town Planning, Yerwada, Pune for drawing and lodging bills in treasury relating to arrears of pay due to complainant.

4. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that, Mrs. Smita Suresh Paranjape (P.W.1), public servant, working in the same office, i.e. Executive Engineer, Town Planning was entitled to arrears of pay for the period from 1st January, 1986 to 31st December, 1993. Pay fixation order was passed on 29th December, 2000. Whereafter she enquired with accused about the, bills. Following that accused told her, unless, Rs.1,500-- were paid, he would not submit bills to Treasury. Thereafter on 17th January, 2001, Complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau. Upon completing required formalities, Complainant was accompanied by the witness, Sangita Maruti Sarde (P.W.2). Initially, the Complainant and the witness had been in his office where the complainant enquired about her bills. Accused told that he had done calculations required for drawing a bill and also asked whether she had brought the money. Whereafter the accused, Complainant and the witness went to a tea-stall, where again Complainant enquired about the bills and thereafter accused demanded bribe. Soon after he received the bribe, the raiding party apprehended the accused and the tainted money quoted with the Anthracine powder was recovered.

5. Prosecution in support of the charge examined four witnesses. The learned Judge upon appreciating the evidence, convicted the appellant as stated above and hence, this Appeal.

6 Mr. Tajane, learned counsel for the appellant contended that sanction dated 30th May, 2001 granted under Section 19 of the PC Act was invalid and was not only relatable to irregularity and errors crept in while granting, but it resulted in failure of justice. Mr. Tajane would, therefore, submit that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the sanctioning authority and erroneously held, sanction was valid. He would submit that evidence of the sanctioning authority on the face of it renders the sanction invalid and on this ground alone, the Trial Court ought to have absolved the appellant of all the charges. In support of this contention, Mr. Tajane has taken me through the testimony of the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, a sanctioning authority.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Dabke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, contended that Section 19(3) of the Act is complete embargo on the Court to reverse or alter findings, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge in appeal on the ground of error, omission or irregularity in the sanction unless in the opinion of the Court that such an error, omission or irregularity caused failure of justice. Mr. Dabke, would, therefore, argue that alleged lapses and omissions on the part of Sanctioning Authority while granting the sanction itself would not be fatal to the prosecution when the material furnishes proof of illegal demand of gratification and its acceptance by the appellant-accused. In support of his contention, Mr. Dabke would rely on the provisions