IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Order of sanction can also be proved by examining a witness who can identify signatures of sanctioning authority – Whether accused had competence or not cannot be an important aspect – Impression in mind of bribe-giver that accused would be of some help is sufficient.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 18-7-2018 passed by Special Judge, S.P.E. (Lokayukt), Bhopal in Special Case No. SC LOK 26/2015, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences:

All the sentences to run concurrently.

2. According to the prosecution case, the Appellant was working as Public Relation Officer, M.P. Tourism Department, Hotel Palash, Bhopal. The Appellant was presenting officer in a departmental enquiry, which was pending against the complainant Praveen Dubey, and co-accused T.R. Tank was the Enquiry Officer. The Appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 1 lac to drop the departmental enquiry from the complainant for himself as well as on behalf of co-accused T.R. Tank. The complainant Praveen made a complaint to the S.P.E. (Lokayukt) about the demand of illegal gratification and accordingly after verifying the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint, trap was laid by the S.P.E. (Lokayukt) and the Appellant was caught red handed and ill-gotten amount of Rs.25,000/- was also seized from the possession of the Appellant.

3. The prosecution after obtaining sanction for prosecution, filed a charge sheet against the Appellant under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also filed a charge sheet against the co-accused T.R. Tank for offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 120-B of IPC.

4. The Appellant and co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined Praveen Kumar Dubey (P.W.1), Jai Kumar (P.W.2), Umesh Kumar Jhala (P.W.3), Avinash Gajrani (P.W.4), V.K. Bhartiya (P.W.5), Fazal Mohd. (P.W.6), Dr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh (P.W.7), Smt. Neeta Choubey (P.W.8), Laxmipati Chaturvedi (P.W.9), Ashwini Sharma (P.W.10), Umesh Kumar Tiwari (P.W.11), Ratnesh Bhargava (P.W.12), V.K. Singh (P.W.13) and Saidutt Bohare (P.W.14).

6. The Appellant examined Vijay Suryavanshi (D.W.1) in his defence.

7. The Trial Court after hearing the prosecution as well as the accused persons, acquitted the co-accused T.R. Tank and convicted the Appellant for the offences mentioned above.

8. It appears that the acquittal of co-accused T.R. Tank has not been challenged by the State.

9. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, it is submitted by Counsel for the Appellant that the sanction for prosecution was not granted after due application of mind and secondly, the appellant was merely a presenting officer, and he had no authority to get the departmental enquiry closed or dropped, therefore, there was no reason for the appellant to either demand the illegal gratification or to accept the same.

10. Per contra, it is submitted by Counsel for the State that the competency of the accused to pass a favorable order is not a sine qua non, but the impression in the mind of the bribe giver is important. The appellant was the presenting officer who was presenting the case against the complainant and therefore, if the complainant was given an impression that the appellant can get the departmental enquiry dropped or closed, then it cannot be said that there was no reason for the appellant to make such a demand. Further the tainted money was seized from the possession of the Appellant and in view of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden is on the appellant to prove his innocence.

11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Whether conviction of the Appellant can be reversed on the question of sanction