IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of the sanction to prosecute under the PC Act is crucial, and the sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind and satisfy legal requirements for granting sanction.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State as it is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon dated 02-07-2002 in Special Case No.9 of 1997, which was tried for commission of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “the PC Act”).

2. Learned APP for Appellant State would submit that accused was working as Assistant Lineman in Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). Complainant is an agriculturist. Accused had demanded bribe under the garb of private fees to reconnect disconnected electricity connection. Therefore, complainant has approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Thereafter, trap was laid.

Demand was made and the learned trial Court has answered this point in affirmative. Even acceptance is held by the learned trial Judge to be proved and the said point is answered in affirmative. However, according to him, for only want of sanction, learned trial Court has acquitted accused. He submitted that grant of sanction was only upon due satisfaction. Sanctioning authority himself has stepped in the witness box, but the learned trial Court hold that there was no authority with sanctioning authority to grant sanction. Infact, there is documentary evidence regarding delegation to grant sanction, but the same has not been considered by the learned trial Judge and therefore, for all above reasons, he prays to allow the appeal.

3. In answer to above, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. That for establishing the charge, apart from proving demand and acceptance, it is in incumbent upon the prosecution to also prove that sanction to prosecute was in accordance with law. He pointed out that sanctioning authority was holding additional charge and not full-fledge charge to accord sanction. Learned Counsel would submit that in the present matter, Deputy Executive Engineer was holding charge of Executive Engineer and he exercised powers, which are bestowed on superior authority i.e. Executive Engineer. Therefore, there is defect in the prosecution and hence, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant. According to him, there is no merit in the case and so he prays not to disturb findings of the learned trial Court.

4. In the instant appeal, there is challenge to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge acquitting accused from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act.

On going through the impugned judgment, as pointed out by the learned APP, it is emerging that learned trial Judge has answered point nos.1 and 2 in affirmative thereby holding that respondent herein, who was Assistant Lineman, had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.100/- which was other than legal remuneration and he has accepted the said amount. However, after noting above two points in affirmative, learned trial Court acquitted accused by answering point no.3 in negative i.e. prosecution failing to establish that there was valid sanction for prosecuting appellant accused. Precisely said acquittal is now assailed by instant appeal. Though there is no serious contest about findings to point nos.1 and 2, as this Court is testing the impugned judgment by invoking Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., it is expected of this Court to even deal with the above said points to ascertain whether the conclusion reached at is correct or not.

5. The sum and substance of evidence of PW1 Dattatraya Sidappa Hatki, sanctioning authority, which is at exh.8, is that he seems to be Deputy Executive Engineer and according to him, he was holding additional charge of the post of the Executive Engineer and was thus appointing and removing authority of class-IV servants. According to him, accused, who is their employee, had demanded bribe and accepted the same and was caught by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and that he has gone through