The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid sanction for prosecution under Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the importance of independent witness credibility and verification of alleged demands of bribe.

JUDGMENT

R.G.AVACHAT,J. - The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dtd. 23/11/2005 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Aurangabad in Special Case No. 4 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( 'P.C. Act '), and therefore, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 on each count. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :-

2. The appellant was serving as a Police Constable with Commissonerate of Police, Aurangabad. P.W.2 - Sanjay Bhalkar was in the business of transporting and selling of sand. He would carry sand from Paithan to Aurangabad. It so happened that on 19/9/2003 P.W. 2 - Sanjay carried sand in his tractor attached with trolley from Paithan to Jadhavwadi. It was about 04.00 p.m. The sand could not be sold. He was, therefore, on his way back home. The appellant met him at Central Naka. He stopped him and made demand of Rs.50.00 as entry fee. Since P.W.2 - Sanjay did not have that much amount, he paid Rs.10.00 for tea. The appellant asked him to pay him Rs.100.00 on the next day as entry fee of two days. Since P.W.2 - Sanjay did no want to pay the appellant bribe, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad ( 'A.C.B. '). P.W.5 - Rameshwar, Police Inspector, A.C.B. Aurangabad recorded the statement-cum-complaint lodged by P.W.2 - Sanjay. He decided to lay a trap. He, therefore, secured presence of two government officials to act as panch witnesses. A pre-trap panchanama was drawn. All the concerns were given requisite instructions. P.W.3 - Premanand (shadow witness) was asked to accompany P.W. 2 - Sanjay as a witness for payment of bribe. Accordingly, on 20/9/2003 the appellant met P.W.2 - Sanjay and P.W.3 - Premanand near Nutan Vidyalaya near Central Naka. The appellant made demand of the bribe money. P.W.2 - Sanjay, therefore, paid him Rs.100.00 and then gave a pre- determined signal. The raiding party arrived in no time. The appellant was overpowered. The said note of Rs.100.00 came to be seized from him under the post-trap panchanama. P.W.5 - Rameshwar lodged the First Information Report (Exh.34) on behalf of the State. He recorded the statement of persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and obtained the sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The appellant then came to be proceeded against by filing the charge-sheet.

3. The learned Judge of the Special Court framed the charge (Exh.6). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence is of false implication. It is his case that he had acquaintance with P.W.2 - Sanjay. He had lent P.W.2 - Sanjay a sum of Rs.500.00 as hand loan. There was some quarrel between the two. With a view to take a revenge, the appellant has been falsely implicated. The prosecution examined five witnesses to bring home the charge and produced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation of evidence in the case, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above.

4. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was appointed by the Commissioner of Police. The sanction for his prosecution was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. As such, the sanction for prosecution (Exh.9) was invalid. According to learned counsel, there was no verification of demand. P.W.3 - Premanand, shadow witness, did not stand by the prosecution. As such, the prosecution failed to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal.

5. Learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit that the Deputy Commissioner of Police Head Quarters was the appointing authority of a police constable. Sanction accorded by him was, therefore, valid one. On the question of evidence of the shadow witness, it was submitted that in the po