Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vinay Joshi, J
Sanjay s/o Mahadeo Ingle – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 530/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. K.P. Sadavarte
For the Respondents: Mr. S.M. Ukey
Validity of sanction for prosecution is fundamental, and can be challenged at any stage of legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Challenge to order of Special Court rejecting discharge application on basis of invalid sanction. The prosecution was initiated following a complaint regarding an illegal demand for bribe, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The petitioner contests the competency of the sanctioning authority, asserting invalidity based on the non-appointing nature of the sanction grantor. The Court recognized the pivotal nature of valid sanction and its relevance at various stages of trial, ruling that the challenge to validity can be addressed despite the ongoing prosecution. (Paras 3, 11, 13)
(B) Sanction - The competence of the grantor of sanction was emphasized as essential for proceeding with prosecution under the PC Act. The absence of valid sanction can invalidate the trial. The Court ruled that discharge applications can be considered at any point, regardless of prior charge framing. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of demanding a bribe for processing a land mutation, resulting in prosecution under the PC Act.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court must reassess the discharge application considering the points raised about the validity of sanction.
Issues: The main legal question was whether the sanction for prosecution was valid given the authority of the sanctioning officer.
Ratio Decidendi: Sanction must be granted by a competent authority. The court emphasized the right to challenge the validity of sanction at any stage in the proceedings.
Result: Petition allowed, order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the prosecution and the bribe demand. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on the validity of sanction for prosecution. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's view on the importance of valid sanction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's reasoning on challenging validity of sanction. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final ruling on the petition and order. (Para 13 , 14) |
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of both the parties.
3. The petitioner raises a challenge to the order dated 30.06.2022, by which the Special Court has rejected application Exh. 56 claiming discharge. The petitioner (accused/Talathi) was facing the prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’). The petitioner has applied for discharge on account of invalid sanction to prosecute in terms of Section 19 of the PC Act, however the Trial Court has declined to discharge the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Talathi and posted in Khamgaon, District Buldana. The complainant’s father had purchased a piece of agricultural land in Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana. On 09.07.2015, the complainant met to the petitioner seeking to carry mutation entry on the basis of sale-deed. The petitioner has raised illegal demand of Rs. 2,000/- for taking mutation entry. The complainant was reluctant to pay the bribe and therefore, he has approached to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. The complaint was recorded. Necessary procedure was followed and raid was conducted, on which the petitioner was caught by the Police while accepting bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/-. The investigation was completed. The necessary sanction for prosecution was obtained which was followed by filing of charge-sheet in the Special Court.
5. The prosecution has examined in all four witnesses including the Sanctioning Authority. On the basis of admission given by PW-4 Sanctioning Authority, the petitioner has applied to the Special Court for discharge on account of invalid sanction. It is contended that the sanction to prosecute was accorded by the Sub Divisional Officer (‘SDO’) who was neither appointing nor removing authority for the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Talathi by the order of Collector whilst SDO has merely given a posting to the petitioner, therefore the Collector is the competent authority for according sanction, however the SDO has granted sanction which is invalid. The learned Trial Court has considered the submissions, however declined to entertain the application on the ground raised therein by stating that charge was already framed long back. The point of validity of sanction was not raised at earlier point of time. Therefore, the question of sanction can be decided at the time of conclusion of trial and accordingly rejected discharge application.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Talahti by the Collector whilst the sanction was accorded by the SDO who was neither appointing or removing authority and thus, the sanction to prosecute is not in tune of Section 19 (1)(c) of the PC Act. Per contra, the learned APP has supported the impugned order as well as placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 30.05.1984 to contend that the SDO is competent authority to accord sanction. Moreover, the learned APP would submit that since charge has already been framed, now at belated stage, the applicant cannot claim for discharge. In support of said contention, the learned APP relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1979) 2 SCC 179. On facts, he relied on the decision of this Court in case of Vikas s/o. Baburao Marathe Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2988 to contend that the sanction is valid.
7. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner w
