Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 2054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vinay Joshi, Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.
Shri Avin - Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary , Revenue And Forest Department - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 941 of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Akhtar Nawab Ansari, Advocate, Thakre, Advocate, N.B. Javade, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The legal principle established is that new evidence must be considered in sanction decisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and misinterpretation of legal communications can invalidate prior refusals of sanction.
Headnote:
SANCTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - The court addressed the issue of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity for reconsideration of sanction in light of new evidence. The court found that the refusal of sanction was based on a misinterpretation of the law and directed the authority to reassess the case with the new material presented, thereby reinforcing the legal requirement for due process in sanctioning decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the closure report accepted by the Additional Session Judge and sought to recall the refusal of sanction to prosecute a Revenue Officer accused of accepting a bribe. The complaint led to a successful trap by the Anti Corruption Bureau, but the initial sanction for prosecution was denied. New evidence emerged after the refusal, prompting the petitioner to seek reconsideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal of sanction was based on a misinterpretation of the communication from the Home Department. The court held that the authority was obligated to reconsider the sanction in light of the new evidence, which was not properly addressed in the previous decision.
Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was improperly denied and whether the authority was required to reconsider the sanction based on new evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the presence of new material necessitates a fresh consideration of the sanction for prosecution, and that misinterpretation of communications by the authorities can lead to unjust outcomes.
Final Decision: The court quashed the closure report and the refusal of sanction, directing the authority to re-forward the proposal for sanction with the new evidence and to make a decision in accordance with the law within specified time frames.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VINAY JOSHI, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 29/3/2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Chandrapur accepting the closure report as well as sought directions to recall the decision of the respondent no.3 Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dtd. 4/12/2015 refusing to grant sanction and subsequent related communications.
3. It is the petitioner's case that on 25/4/2014, he has made a complaint to the respondent no. 5 Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Wardha about the alleged demand of bribe for taking relevant mutation entry by respondent no.8, who was working as the Revenue Officer. In pursuance of said complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau arranged trap, which was turned to be successful in which respondent no.8 was allegedly found accepting bribe of Rs.5, 000.00. After completion of investigation, papers were forwarded by respondent no.4 Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai to respondent no.2 Additional Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya for sanction to prosecute in terms of Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said sanction was refused vide communication dated 04. 12.2015.
After receipt of said communication, the spectrographic report was received on 4/2/2016 stating that audio samples matches and voice of complainant and respondent no. 8 has been identified to be similar. On that basis, again respondent no.4 submitted a proposal to the respondent no. 2 for reconsidering refusal of sanction on account of new material, which emerges after refusal of sanction. In response, respondent no.2 has communicated to respondent no.4 that as per Circular if there is new material, a fresh proposal can be sent for sanction. However, respondent no.4 has misinterpreted the letter and communicated to respondent no.7 that the sanction has been once again refused.
4. It is apparent that the very purport of the letter issued by respondent no. 2 dated 26/29/7.2017 was to re-forward the proposal on the basis of new material but it did not happen. Obviously, on the basis of new material, the authority has to reconsider the aspect of sanction in accordance with law. In view of that the impugned communication as well as order of closure does not sustain in the eyes of law.
5. In the circumstance, the petition is allowed. We hereby quashed and set aside the order of closure acceptance report dtd. 29/3/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur as well the relevant communication by which the sanction was refused. We hereby direct respondent no.4 to re-forward the papers with additional material to the Sanctioning Authority, who in turn shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
6. Since the incident dates back to 10 years, the Authority shall forward the proposal within eight weeks from today and possibly the Sanctioning Authority shall take appropriate decision within eight weeks, thereafter.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
