Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bharati Dangre, J.
Sunil Achyutrao Thete - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 5 of 2020
Decided On : 20-10-2023
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 19 - The court discussed the necessity of a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the facts and evidence before it. The court highlighted that a sanction issued without proper consideration or under external influence is invalid, which directly influenced its decision to discharge the applicant due to the lack of a valid sanction.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe while serving as a public servant. The original complainant reported that the applicant demanded a bribe to allow construction work to continue. A trap was set, but the bribe was not accepted. The prosecution sought sanction for the applicant's prosecution, which was granted after a convoluted process involving multiple departments and opinions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sanction for prosecution was invalid as it lacked proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The authority had initially opined against granting sanction but later issued it under pressure from the Law and Judiciary Department, which constituted an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was valid and whether the applicant was entitled to discharge based on the invalidity of the sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a prerequisite for prosecuting a public servant. The authority must independently apply its mind to the evidence and facts, and any sanction issued under external influence or without proper consideration is invalid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, quashed the order refusing discharge, and discharged the applicant from the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to the invalidity of the sanction.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Criminal Revision Application is filed by the applicant who is charged for an offence punishable u/s.7, 12, 15, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.R.No.02/2015 registered with Shahapur police station. He preferred an application for discharge before the Sessions Court at Kalyan which was rejected on 18/9/2019, and being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Court. I have heard Advocate Sudeep Pasbola for the applicant and Shri S.R. Agarkar, the learned APP for the State.
2. The prosecution case can be culled out as under :-
On 27/12/2014, when the said work was going on, Shri Thete, R.F.O seized the machinery and stopped the said work, stating that the work is being carried out in Malegaon, Kudset Forest Area/limit.
Thereafter, when the original complainant contacted Shri Thete, R.F.O in his office, he initially demanded Rs.1.00 lakh, and after negotiation, he agreed to accept Rs.75, 000.00 from him, for allowing to restart the said work of construction of road. Out of the said amount of Rs.75, 000.00, Shri Thete, R.F.O accepted Rs.15, 000.00 from the original complainant on 27/12/2014 and asked him to bring balance amount of Rs.60, 000.00 within two days.
Not willing to offer this amount on 30/12/2014, the complainant lodged a complaint with the office of A.C.B Thane. Thereafter, during the verification of demand, it was revealed that Shri Thete, R.F.O demanded the said amount of bribe from the original complainant, in presence of panch witness, and asked him to give the said amount to Shri Padwal, Forester. Verification panchnama was drawn accordingly.
Pursuant to this, the trap was arranged on 31/12/2014. On completing pre-trap formalities, a pre-trap panchnama was drawn, in which number of the currency notes which were to be used as bribe, were noted.
On the day of trap, Shri Thete, RFO asked the complainant to give the bribe amount to one Shri Padwal, Forester. Thereafter, when the complainant tried to give the bribe amount to Shri Padwal, Forester, he asked the complainant to give the said amount to Shri Kudav, Forester Guard, who in turn asked the original complainant to hand over the same to one child, who was accompanying with Shri Kudav, aged between 12-13, at Dhasai Shenwar Road. However, since the original complainant did not give amount to the said child, Shri Kudav, Forest Guard suspected something and therefore, he left the said spot with said child. Hence, there was no acceptance of gratification and the trap was withdrawn.
After due investigation, FIR No. 2/2015 came to be registered at Shahapur police station against the aforesaid accused public servants for the offences punishable under Sec. 7, 12, 15, 13(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The investigation was conducted in the said C.R. and on recording the statements of the witnesses, the charge-sheet came to be filed. After filing of the charge-sheet, on 14/3/2016, the Director General of ACB, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, requested the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, to accord sanction u/s.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is a necessary requirement before prosecuting a public servant.
By a note put up on 13/4/2016, prepared by the Sec. Officer of the Revenue and Forest Department, it was expressly opined that in the present case, the trap laid was not successful as bribe amount/demanded was not accepted, and since there is no material to establish that Shri Thete or other public servants have received the illegal gratification by way of bribe, the offence came to be registered against them after delay of 40 days, by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), only for demand of bribe and that too, it w
A valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, and any failure to do so renders the sanction invalid.
Grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution is not an empty formality – Act of according sanction for prosecution must be preceded by proper application of mind by competent authority.
A public servant cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act without a valid sanction from the competent authority, and such authority cannot delegate its power to grant or refuse san....
The validity of the sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 depends on the application of mind by the sanctioning authority and their full knowledge of the material facts o....
Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Ju....
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
The amendment to Sec. 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act extends the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution to include public servants who were in service at the time of the alleged ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
