Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.M. MODAK, J.
The State of Maharashtra, (Through Police Inspector, A. C. B., Satara) – Appellant
Versus
Ramdas Bhagwan Vairat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.235 Of 2011
Decided On : 30-09-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Patil.
The competency of the sanctioning authority is essential in corruption cases; a subordinate officer cannot grant valid sanction, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19(1)(b) - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 7(4) and 13(4) - Appeal against acquittal of accused in a corruption case - Acquittal based on unsatisfactory evidence and improper sanctioning authority - Court found trial court's findings on evidence trivial and emphasized the need for competent sanctioning authority - Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit. (Paras 2, 28)
(B) Sanctioning Authority - Competency of the sanctioning authority is crucial in corruption cases - The Sub-Divisional Officer, being subordinate to the Collector, cannot grant valid sanction for prosecution. (Paras 21, 27)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent was acquitted by the trial court on grounds of unsatisfactory evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe and improper sanctioning authority. The prosecution's evidence was deemed trivial by the appellate court. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court disagreed with the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the evidence presented was reliable and the sanction was improperly granted. (Paras 15, 28)
Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of evidence for demand and acceptance of bribe and the validity of the sanction granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer. (Paras 2, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the trial court placed undue emphasis on minor variances in evidence and that the sanctioning authority must be competent as per constitutional provisions. (Paras 21, 28)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(S.M. Modak, J.)
1. This Court has noticed about cases instituted by the Anti– Corruption Bureau resulted into an acquittal for various reasons. It may be due to unsatisfactory evidence on the point of demand and acceptance. It may be due to defects / loopholes in the sanctioning process. Sometime, the sanction is granted by an Officer who is not competent to grant the sanction. On other occasions, sanction fails to satisfy the test of reliability on account of non-application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority. On other occasions, the Prosecution fails to adduce evidence on the point of correspondence made with the Sanctioning Authority and failure to prove delegation of power to grant sanction to the Authority. It is surprising to note that these mistakes occur in various cases. This Court is not aware whether the Anti–Corruption Bureau headed by senior most Officer has taken any steps to avoid these loopholes.
2. That is why, while dealing with this Appeal, this Court has taken upon itself the task of bringing the loopholes to the notice of higher officials of the Anti–Corruption Bureau. The Respondent-Accused was tried by the Court of Special Judge No.1 – Satara. The Respondent was acquitted mainly on two grounds. They are:-
(a) The evidence on the point of demand and acceptance not satisfactory. I do not agree to these findings and I will give reasons hereinafter and
(b) The sanction ought to have been granted by the Collector but it is granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
3. With the assistance of both the sides, I have perused the prosecution evidence. What I find is, the prosecution evidence on the point of demand and acceptance was discarded for some reasons and according to this Court, they are trivial in nature. So to say, the variances in the evidence do not deal with the material particulars. The trial Court has unnecessarily given importance to those minor variances. Even though, this Court do not agree with the findings given by the trial Court on this aspect, when this Court has inquired about competency of the Sanctioning Authority, this Court is unable to reverse that finding. Ultimately, the Appeal has to be dismissed. I will give reasons for this conclusion.
Scope of an appeal
4. When an accused is acquitted, it is said that the presumption of innocence is reinforced and there can be interference only when the findings are perverse. That is to say a judge gives findings even though the evidence is otherwise or not at all considering the evidence. When we have to appreciate the evidence, you cannot interfere in the judgment of acquittal, simply because Appellate Court can take different view. The process of re-appreciation is like this, first to consider what is the evidence, then to ascertain what can be the inferences and what is the law. If the evidence says one thing and in the judgment you writes other thing, it is not permissible. On this background, the evidence need to be considered.
Prosecution evidence
5. Usually, there are four witnesses examined in a trap case. In this case too. They are as follows:-
(a) PW No.1–Jaysing Dnyanoba Pharande–De-facto Complainant
(b) PW No.2–Devidas Babulal Chavan–Trap panch
(c) PW No.3–Ratansing Bhagwansing Rajput–Investigating Officer
(d) PW No.4–Pradipkumar Lalasaheb Patil–Sanctioning Authority.
Background of the case
6. Sunanda Shinde is the sister of the de-facto Complainant PW No.1 – Jaysing Pharande. She owns a land at Anewadi, Taluka : Javali, District : Satara. She wants to erect a green house. She obtained loan of Rs.4,93,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Three Thousand) from Bank of Baroda. It is but natural for the Bank to have their charge on 7x12 extract. That is why, the Revenue Authorities are required to be pursued. The Talathi Anewadi was the necessary Authority. The Respondent was holding the said post till he handed over the charge on 7th June 2004. The said Sunanda has not pursued to the Revenue Authorities but on her behalf, the de-facto Complai
