IMPORTANT POINT
A valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted after thorough examination of all relevant facts and materials by the sanctioning authority; failure to do so can lead to the quashing of the conviction.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dtd. 27/7/2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) Case No.9 of 2004. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act", for short) and therefore, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00; and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.4,000.00, respectively.

2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as follows.

3. PW 1 - Ganesh (complainant) would run S.T.D. booth at village Mandvi, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. His mother runs a licensed country liquor shop. He would assist his mother in running the said shop. Dharmendra, son of the complainant's brother, would assist the complainant in running S.T.D. booth. The complainant's brother - Jagannath is addicted to liquor. He had obtained permit for consumption of liquor. It so happened that Dharmendra and the complainant's servant - Arjun were proceeding on motorbike on 18/4/2004. They were carrying two box containing country liquor bottles. The appellant herein was serving as Head Constable with Mandvi Police Station. He, on 18/2/2004, intercepted both of them. Took them to police station and registered a crime. The complainant had, therefore, been to the police station. The appellant told the complainant to have registered a crime for possession of illicit liquor and even proposed to file a chapter case. The complainant requested the appellant not to file the chapter case. The appellant, therefore, made demand of Rs.1,000.00 as bribe. The complainant asked for four days' time to pay the appellant bribe. He (appellant) agreed.

4. On 25/2/2004, the appellant visited the complainant's S.T.D. booth and reminded him of his promise to pay him Rs.1,000.00. The complainant asked the appellant to come on the following day, since he did not have that much money to pay at once that time. Since the complainant did not want to pay the appellant bribe, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nanded.

5. PW 5 - Ashok was Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption Bureau. He recorded the complaint (Exh.22) lodged by the appellant. It was decided to lay a trap. Presence of two State Government employees was secured to act as panch witnesses. Pre-trap panchnama (Exh.27) was drawn. All the concerned were given due instructions. On the following day, i.e. on 27/2/2004, the complainant accompanied by PW 3 (shadow witness) came to the complainant's S.T.D. booth. All members of the trap party remained around. The appellant came to the S.T.D. booth and made demand of bribe money. The complainant paid the same and then gave a pre-determined signal. The officials of the trap party arrived in no time. The sum of Rs.1,000.00 (10 currency notes of Rs.100.00) came to be seized from the appellant. Seizure panchnama was drawn. Then, post-trap panchnama (Exh.28) was also drawn. PW 5 - Ashok lodged the FIR on behalf of the State (Exh.33). The papers of investigation were submitted to the then Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Nanded (PW 2). He, in turn, granted sanction (Exh.25) for prosecution of the appellant. Thus, the appellant came to be proceeded against by filing charge sheet. Learned Judge framed Charge (Exh.12). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence is of false implication.

6. The prosecution examined five witnesses and produced in evidence certain documents in proof of the Charge. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above.

7. Mr.Chatterji, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the sanctioning authority granted sanction for the appellant's prosecution mechanically. The Investigating Officer had supplied a draft sanction along with the papers of investigation. The sanctioning authority (PW 2) has admitted in his e