Point of Law: Sanction order - Record indicates that draft sanction letter was forwarded to sanctioning authority along with other papers. Actual sanction which is granted is verbatim reproduction of draft sanction. There was a non-application of mind while granting sanction to prosecute.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 & Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No.1 of 2011, has preferred this appeal. The original accused was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The original accused was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During pendency of this appeal the original accused passed away. His wife got herself substituted before this Court with a bid to purge him. She was allowed to continue with the appeal.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal can be summarized as under :-

3. The original accused was serving as a Personal Secretary in the office of Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon. He used to scrutinize medical bills of the Government servants and used to place before the Civil Surgeon for sanction. The complainant Rajiv Hari Jamodkar was serving as a Junior Clerk in the office of Collector, Jalgaon. On 19.04.2010 his mother had undergone eye operation in Ganpati Hospital, Jalna. He spent Rs.8895/- towards said operation and other medical expenses. In order to get the medical bill reimbursed, he submitted application in his office and annexed necessary documents. It was necessary for the complainant to obtain certificate from the Civil Surgeon for reimbursement of medical bill. Hence, his office sent his application to the office of the Civil Surgeon on 02.08.2010. The said papers were received by the Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon on 03.08.2010.

4. It is alleged that the complainant met original accused 3-4 times and made enquiry about his medical bill. The original accused told the complainant that his work will not be done within short period and he would inform him accordingly.

5. On 13.08.2010 the complainant met the original accused and requested him to do his work at the earliest. The original accused demanded Rs.800/- for the said work. The informant asked him as to whether he will give receipt of the said amount. The original accused answered in the negative. The original accused told the complainant that unless he receives Rs.800/-, he will not place his (complainant’s) application before the Civil Surgeon. The original accused asked him to visit his office on 16.08.2010 along with money. The complainant was not inclined to pay the amount. Hence, on 16.08.2010 he went to the office of the Anti-corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. He narrated the facts to the officer who recorded his complaint and asked him to visit office at 01.00 p.m. Meanwhile, the ACB Officer called two persons, namely, Vijay Thakare and Kishor Jaware. Accordingly, the complainant visited the ACB office at 01.00 p.m. The panch witnesses were present there. They read the complaint and attested the same. The ACB Officer asked the complainant to produce cash and other articles and accordingly the complainant produced eight currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each before the ASI Satodkar. Thereafter, ASI Satodkar explained them the characteristics of anthracene powder and the effects of ultraviolet light on it. ASI Satodkar applied anthracene powder to eight currency notes of Rs.100/-. Those were shown to the complainant and panch witnesses. Similarly, said notes were kept in left shirt pocket of the complainant with instructions to give it to the original accused only on demand. The complainant was instructed that after acceptance of bribe by the original accused, he should give signal to the raiding party by scratching hi