The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the alleged offense, formal proof of sanction for prosecution, and compliance with mandatory provisions, highlighting the technical defects that can lead to acquittal.

D.R. Deshmukh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th April, 1989 delivered by Shri R.S. Rusia if Sessions Case No. 69/86 whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 6 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Aacharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and under Section 467, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. It is not disputed that in the year 1983 in District Raigarh, Irrigation Sub-Division, Baramkela, construction of Kinkamani Canal was in progress under the relief work. At the relevant time, appellant Lalmani Singh was the Sub-Divisional Officer, appellant P.A. Reddi was the Sub-Engineer and appellant Ramesh Chandra Vishnov was the Timekeeper in the above mentioned relief work. It is also not disputed that as per muster roll Ex. P-15, payments for the work done were made to the Headman of the gang undertaking the work.

3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that there was a complaint regarding less payments made to the labourers from 1-1-1983 to 6-1-1983 in the aforesaid relief work. Shri Prabhat Parasar, Additional Collector, Raigarh P.W. 18 enquired into the complaint and found that less wages were paid to the labourers and submitted enquiry report Ex. P-95 mentioning that between the period 1-1-1983 to 64-83 labourers Balram (P.W. 4), Motilal (P.W. 5), Bashtabh and Lambodar (P.W. 8) had received less payments. It was also mentioned that in the muster roll, the name of Ramadhar a child aged 6 years, who was the son of Satna (P.W. 6), was falsely mentioned although he had not worked. A report was sent by the Collector to the Police Station Saria, District Raigarh vide Ex. P-96. On the basis of this report, an offence under Sections 6(A) and 8 of the Adhiniyam was registered and investigation was conducted. Muster Roll Ex. P-15 and relevant papers were seized. On examination by the Additional State Examiner of Questioned Documents, it was opined vide Ex. P-51 that the muster roll Ex. P-15 had been prepared by the appellants. Sanction to prosecute the appellants under Section 37 of the Adhiniyam was sought from the State Government vide Ex. P-5. After completion of investigation, the appellants were prosecuted.

4. The appellants abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge held that it was not established by the prosecution that the appellants had paid less wages, as per muster roll Ex. P-15 to the labourers. However, the learned Trial Judge held that it was established that Ramadhar P.W. 7, a child, had never worked in the relief work and yet his name found mention in the muster roll which clearly proved that the muster roll Ex. P-15 was a forged document. It also held that requisite sanction under Section 37 of the Adhiniyam as also under Section 197, Cr.PC had been obtained by the prosecution. On these premises, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as shown in Paragraph 1.

5. Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction of the appellants was bad in law since there was a clear violation of Section 39 of the Adhiniyam inasmuch as the requisite permission from an authority not below the rank of the Commissioner of a Division for investigating into the offence alleged was not sought. It was also urged that the sanction to prosecute the appellants under Section 37 of the Adhiniyam was neither duly authenticated nor sealed and, therefore, required formal proof. No evidence was led by the prosecution to show that the sanction Ex. P-5 had been signed by t he Competent Authority. On these premises, it was urged that the appellants were entitled to be acquitted. It was also urged that the fact that the payments under the relie