Back
1980 Supreme(MP) 109
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
H. G. MISHRA, J.
MADHUSUDAN PRASAD GUPTA
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1977,
Decided on : 8-5-1980
A valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires the Sanctioning Authority to be satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out, based on facts constituting the offence, and not on mere oral narration or subsequent events.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CORRUPTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5(1)(A) AND (B) - VALIDITY OF SANCTION - REQUIREMENT OF SATISFACTION BY SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - EVIDENCE OF ORAL NARRATION OF FACTS - PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY - HABITUAL ACCEPTANCE OF ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION - PROOF OF RECOVERY OF NOTES FROM ACCUSED - RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant, a time-keeper in the National Park, was convicted under Section 161, IPC, and Section 5(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for accepting illegal gratification from laborers working in the park. The prosecution alleged that the accused habitually took Rs. 5/- per month from each laborer as a bribe, and that he was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 50/- from a group of laborers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sanction granted by the Sanctioning Authority was not valid, as it was based on an oral narration of facts by a Police Officer and a letter from the Superintendent of Police, without any other supporting documents. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused habitually accepted illegal gratification, as the evidence showed that the money collected from the laborers was not paid to the accused. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence regarding the recovery of the bribe money from the accused was not reliable, as there were discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses and the Search Officer did not give and take search before entering the accused's house.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction granted by the Sanctioning Authority was valid. 2. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused habitually accepted illegal gratification. 3. Whether the evidence regarding the recovery of the bribe money from the accused was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a valid sanction requires the Sanctioning Authority to be satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out, and this satisfaction must be based on facts constituting the offence and not on mere oral narration or subsequent events. The court also held that the presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is not available to the Sanctioning Authority, as the occasion for drawing a presumption arises only when a case is before the court. 2. The court held that the word 'habitually' in Section 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act refers to persistency in accepting or obtaining illegal gratification, and not to an isolated act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused habitually accepted illegal gratification, as the evidence showed that the money collected from the laborers was not paid to the accused. 3. The court held that the evidence regarding the recovery of the bribe money from the accused was not reliable, as there were discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses and the Search Officer did not give and take search before entering the accused's house.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant, and acquitted him.
1. This is an appeal by the accused-appellant against his conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Shiv-puri, in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1977 under Section 161, I.P.C. and S.5(1)(a) and (b) read with S.2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the aforesaid offences and imposing a fine of Rs. 100/- only, in default of payment of which three months' rigorous imprisonment is to be undergone.
2. The Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under :-
Pyarelal (P.W. 1), Ramcharan (P.W. 2), Gaganlal (P.W. 7), Chatura, Gulla, Rammu, Angad and others used to work as labourers on road in the National Park, Shivpuri. At the relevant time, accused-appellant Madhusudan Prasad Gupta was time-keeper in the said National Park. Accused was sent on deputation to the aforesaid post. vide order (Ex. P.4) dated 14/3/1965 from the post of Time-keeper in Pichhore Sub-Division in P.W.D. (Block No. 1), Pichhore to the aforesaid post in the Forest Department by orders of the then Executive Engineer, Shri S.M. Shrivastava, Pyarelal (P.W. 1), Ramcharan (P.W. 2), Gaganlal (P.W. 7) along with certain other persons approached Shri Atul Sinha, Collector and District Magistrate, Shivpuri (P.W. 3), with a complaint (Ex. P1) which was signed by Pyarelal, Ramcharan, Gaganlal and others against the accused appellant Madhusudan Prasad Gupta to the effect that he takes from each one of them by way of bribe Rs. 5/- per month on the threat of either not taking them on work or marking them absent for 2-3 days. In the said complaint, it was also stated that they have collected Rs. 50/- for being given as bribe to the accused-appellant. On receipt of this complaint, the District Magistrate, Shivpuri, marked it to the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri On 3/9/1976 with the endorsement ('C' to 'C') "for necessary action. I have signed nine notes of denominations 10/- 5/- 2/- and 1/- given to complainant."
3. On being approached, Shri J.C. Johri, D.S.P. (H.Q.) Shivpuri (P.W. 8) marked the application to Shri R.S. Margekar (P.W. 10), D.S.P. (Administrative) with the following endorsement :
"Please take necessary legal action" Thereafter, Pyarelal and other persona approached R.S. Margekar (P.W. 10) and presented the application (Ex. 1) to him and handed over three notes of Rs. 10/- each, three notes of Rs. 5/- each; two notes of Rs. 2/- each and one note of Rs. 1/-, bearing the following numbers :-
Notes of Rs. 10/-
1) No. G/78- 676282
2) No. G/78- 786824
3) No. G/78- 676229
Notes of Rs. 5/-
1) No. C/13- 062536
2) No. C/71- 589197
3) No. C/71- 691395
Notes of Rs. 2/-
1) No. T/36-409704
2) No. W/30-519619
Note of Re. 1/-
1) No. K/38-898119 G.
seizure memo was prepared at 10.00 hours on 3/9/1976, which is Ex. P.2 by Shri R.S. Margekar (P.W. 10). He directed Pyarelal and the aforesaid persons to contact him at 8 A.M. on 4/9/1976. Thereafter, at 3 A.M. on 4/9/1976, pyarelal, Gaganlal, Ramcharan contacted R.S. Margekar (P.W. 10) and told him that their other colleagues having gone on their work have not come-pyarelal informed him that the accused-appellant was at that time at his residence. There upon. R.S. Margekar (P.W. 10) handed over the aforesaid notes bearing signatures of the Dist. Magistrate, Shivpuri dated 3/9/1976 to Pyarelal and asked him to raise his hand after the aforesaid money was given by him and accepted by the accused-appellant. He further told him that they will be waiting in the lane outside the house of the accused. Accordingly, Pyarelal went inside the house of the accused-appellant and gave the aforesaid signal by raising hand after the said notes were handed over by him to the accused-appellant by way of bribe. On signal being given by Pyarelal. R.S. Margekar (P.W. 10), in presence of Govind Singh (P.W. 9), and Kamarlal went inside the house of the accused and disclosed his identity.
