IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of obtaining sanction from the competent authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is crucial for the validity of prosecution, and trivial amounts may not warrant criminal prosecution under the Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

JITENDRA JAIN, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant/original complainant against the judgment dtd. 31/1/2012, delivered by the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Pune, acquitting the respondent-original accused from charges under Ss. 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P. C. Act").

2. Brief facts relevant for the present appeal are as under:-

<WXY>(i) On 27/9/1995, the respondent/accused was appointed for the post of medical officer under the orders of the Governor of State of Maharashtra by the Principal Secretary. At the relevant time, the accused was posted as medical officer at Rural Hospital, Paud, District Pune.

(ii) It is the claim of the complainant-Laxman Tukaram Pingale that the respondent/accused sought a bribe of Rs.100.00 for the purpose of issuing a medical certificate to certify his injuries. Mr. Pingale stated that he was assaulted by his nephew on 12/2/2007 and due to inflictment of the injury lodged a complaint to Paud Police Station against his nephew. The Police officer Shri. Shaikh of Paud Police Station gave him a requisition letter to go to Gramin Rugnalaya Paud and to get himself medically checked. The respondent/accused-Dr. Anil Shinde treated him and when Mr. Pingale sought medical certificate to submit it to the Police Station, it is alleged that the respondent/accused demanded Rs.100.00 for the purpose of issuing a certificate. Mr. Pingale, thereafter, made a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and a trap was laid on 15/2/2007 by ACB. However, it is stated that on 15/2/2007 when the team of ACB visited the hospital, they were informed that the respondent/accused was on leave and, therefore, the trap was called off.

(iii) On 20/2/2007, Mr. Pingale and the officers of the ACB laid a second trap and the respondent/accused fell into the trap and, thereafter, the proceedings were initiated to prosecute the respondent/accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act (P. C. Act). The sanction for prosecuting the respondent/accused was granted on 6/12/2008, by Shri. S. B. Bhoir, Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra.

(iv) On 16/6/2011, the Special Judge, Pune explained the charge to the respondent/accused that he is being charged for an offence punishable under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P. C. Act. The respondent/accused pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the case was tried by the Special Judge.

(v) The prosecution led evidence of Shri. Laxman Pingale-PW1, complainant, Shri. Govind Nipunge-PW2, one of the Panch, Ms. Radhika Phadake-PW3 Inspector ACB, Pune and Shri. Sharad Bhoir-PW4, Under Secretary, Public Health Department. The statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also recorded. The learned Special Judge after perusing the evidence and hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocate for the accused delivered the judgment acquitting the accused.

(vi) Briefly, the Special Judge observed that sanction for prosecuting the respondent/accused was granted by the Under Secretary, who was not the competent authority to grant the sanction as per Sec. 19(1)(b) of the P. C. Act. Further, the sanction was granted without application of mind. The learned Special Judge also observed that the respondent/accused was present on 15/2/2007, when the first trap was laid and, therefore, the case of the prosecution that on 15/2/2007, the respondent/accused was on leave was found to be false. The learned Special Judge also observed that the respondent/accused had sent the medical certificate to the Police Station on 13/2/2007 and, therefore, the charge levied by the complainant against the respondent/accused that he demanded bribe for issue of certificate was not correct. The Special Judge also stated that tape recorded conversation was not produced. In the light of these observations and reasoning, the Special Judge held that the prosecution has failed to establish th