The court emphasized that a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, and inconsistencies in witness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman, in connection with Special Case No. 18/2011 arising out of Case No. RC0102006A0029 dated 06.11.2013 wherein the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court was pleased to convict the appellant under Section 7 & Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment as follows:

“The accused person, Sanjay Kumar Arya, is hereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years [Two (2) years for commission offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and one (1) year for commission of offence u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - both shall not run concurrently] and shall also pay fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand only), in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months.”

2. The genesis of the present case was on the basis of a complaint received by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB Kolkata, from one Pawan Kumar, Junior Engineer-1, Diesel Loco shed, Office of Senior DME (Diesel), S.E Railway, Bokaro Steel City. It was alleged in the letter of complaint that on 09.08.2006, when Pawan Kumar (complainant) met Dr. Sanjay Kumar Arya (appellant) Divisional Medical Officer, Divisional Railway Hospital, S.E. Railway Adra, District, Purulia, West Bengal, in his office chamber at Adra Divisional Hospital for medical treatment, the said accused Dr. Sanjay Kumar Arya, demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from the complainant and agreed to accept the same from him as illegal gratification for allowing him further rest and asked him to give him the above demanded bribe money of Rs. 500/- on 11.08.2006 at his residence at Adra. As the facts referred to in the letter of complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the case was registered against the Appellant, Divisional Medical Officer, Divisional Railway Hospital, S.E. Railway, Adra, District, Purulia, West Bengal, and endorsed to S.K. Tripathy, Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, ACB, Kolkata for investigation.

3. The investigating agency on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988, before the learned Special Court on or about 04.04.2007. The Learned Special Court was pleased to frame charges on 16.12.2008 under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. The contents of the charges were read over to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 16 witnesses which included PW-1, Pawan Kumar (complainant), Junior Engineer at Diesel Loco Shed, Bokaro Steel City; PW-2, D.K. Srivastava P.R.O. State Bank of India, Asansol Branch; PW-3, Debnath Mukherjee, Office Superintendent, ECL Headquarter; PW-4, Sunil Kumar, Director, Establishment (Welfare and Discipline and Appeal); PW-5, Bimal Chandra Purkait, retired Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Kolkata; PW-6, Satyaranjan Naskar, Senior Section Engineer, Diesel Loco Shed, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro; PW-7, Subodh Chandra Roy, Senior Peon, Medical Department, South Eastern Railway Hospital, Adra, Purulia; PW-8, Mayuk Maitra, Inspector of Police CBI, ACB, Kolkata; PW-9, Dr. Amresh Ch. Bardhan, M.B.B.S. Orissa Medical Council; PW-10, Susanta Bhattacharya, Inspector, CBI, Banking Securities Fraud Branch, Kolkata; PW-11, Pabir