Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
Saddam Shah Khalil Shah Fakir – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 816 of 2020
Decided On : 13-10-2020
For the Petitioner:R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, i./by V.R. Dhorde, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S.J. Salgare, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal of sanction for the prosecution of a Police Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be reasoned and based on adequate consideration of the evidence. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes that the sanction and its procedure are not meant to shield the guilty.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Refusal of Sanction - Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [Prevention of Corruption Act] - [Police Officer, Sanction, Corruption Act] - The court discussed the refusal of sanction for the prosecution of a Police Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court highlighted the evidence of demand of bribe, detention of the petitioner, and the involvement of the Police Inspector and two Constables in the alleged corruption. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case for sanction against the Police Inspector under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the refusal of sanction lacked adequate reasoning and consideration of the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of sanction for the prosecution of a Police Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner alleged that the Police Inspector and two Constables were involved in demanding a bribe, detaining the petitioner, and creating false records to protect themselves. The Anti-Corruption Bureau investigated the matter and found sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case for sanction against the Police Inspector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was adequate evidence to make out a prima facie case for sanction against the Police Inspector under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also noted that the refusal of sanction lacked adequate reasoning and consideration of the evidence.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of sanction for the prosecution of a Police Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the adequacy of evidence to make out a prima facie case for sanction against the Police Inspector.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal of sanction lacked adequate reasoning and consideration of the evidence, and there was sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case for sanction against the Police Inspector under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Director General of Police for reconsideration for according the sanction to prosecute the Police Inspector.
JUDGMENT :
T.V. Nalawade, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.
2. The present proceeding is filed to challenge the order of the learned Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, dated 5th October 2020 by which the sanction is refused for the prosecution of one Police Officer under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Direction is also claimed against the respondents to accord the sanction.
3. The submissions made and the record of the investigation which was made available by the Anti-Corruption Bureau alongwith its say show that Police Inspector Shri Baliram Hire, who was attached to Yaval Police Station District Jalgaon, was involved in one Anti-Corruption case and the sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was sought by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. Sanction was sought against two constables also, who were working under P.I. Hire. Sanction is given to prosecute these two Constables but it is refused in respect of P.I. Hire.
4. The record shows that it is the contention of original complainant, present petitioner that P.I. Hire visited the residential place of the petitioner on 12/01/2017 and he took the petitioner to Police Station, Yaval by saying that one lady had given report against him. It is contended that when he entered the police station, he noticed that said lady and her parents were present in the police station. It is contended that P.I. Hire then told him in the police station that allegations were made by the lady against the petitioner that the petitioner had raped her, had committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that threat was given to him by P.I. Hire that crime will be registered for offence punishable U/S. 376 of I.P.C. against him on the basis of report of aforesaid lady if he does not give Rs. 5,00,000/- to P.I. Hire. It is the contention of the petitioner that he said that he cannot give such big amount and after negotiations, P.I. Hire agreed to accept Rs. 3,00,000/- to see that no crime is registered for offence of rape. It is the contention that from 12/01/2017 till the evening of 13/01/2017 he was detained by P.I. Hire and two Constables Kailas Ingle and Kiran Thakare. It is the contention that he was taken by Constables Ingale and Thakare to their residential quarter on 12/01/2017. It is his contention that he was taken to AXIS Bank, Jalgaon, from where the petitioner withdrew amount of Rs. 40,000/- and he gave it to these persons. It is contended that when he was brought by these three persons to Yawal police station, P.I. Hire took over his mobile handset and asked him to collect the remaining amount. It is contended that when he requested the two constables to return the mobile handset on 13/01/2017, the two Constables asked him to give Rs. 20,000/- for return of the mobile handset. It is contended that after that he was allowed to leave the police station but he was expected to collect the money to meet the demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- and also separate demand of Rs. 20,000/- made by the two Constables. It is contended that due to apprehension that he will be implicated in the case of rape, on 21/01/2017 he handed-over Rs. 80,000/- to Constable Ingale.
6. It is the case of the complainant, petitioner that there was demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- from P.I. Hire for helping him and for not registering crime for offence of rape and there was demand of Rs. 20,000/- from Ingale and Thakare Constables and he was not having intention to give the remaining amount and as there was possibility of more harassment and then he approached the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. It is the contention that they had given threat to register the crime when he had not committed such crime. He informed to the Anti-Corruption Bureau that he was expected to visit the police station on 23/01/2017.
7. Thus, on 23/01/2017, there was demand
