K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused recorded by the Special Judge for C. B. I. Cases, Hyderabad in C. C. No. 1 of 1992 dated 31-12-1992 in respect of an offence of demanding and taking bribe said to have been committed by the respondent on 27-3-1991.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused-respondent was an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Assistant Garrison Engineer (E and M) Establishment Section at Golconda, Hyderabad during the period from June 198 8/03/1991. It was his duty to deal with the official correspondence of all the employees working under A. G. E. (Electrical and Mechanical), Golconda. The complainant who was working as Pump House Operator under the A. G. E. (E and M), Golconda applied for the final withdrawal from his G. P. F. in the month of February 1991. His application was allowed and the G. P. F. was sanctioned by C. W. F. , Secunderabad. The papers were sent to the respondent for preparation of the contingent bill for final withdrawal of his G. P. F. On 25-3-1991, the respondent demanded an amount of Rs. 200. 00 as illegal gratification from the complainant S. Govind for preparation of the contingent bill as also covering letter. The complainant did not want to bribe the respondent and, therefore, on 26-3-1991, he lodged a complaint with the C. B. I. , Hyderabad. A trap was laid on 27-3-1991. The complainant handed over notes of different denominations amounting to Rs. 200. 00. Phenolphthelein powder was sprayed on the notes and instructions were given to the complainant as also to the mediators. The amount of bribe of Rs. 200. 00 was paid to the respondent by the complainant on his demand and the respondent kept the marked notes in the pocket of his shirt. A signal was given and the raiding party reached the spot and caught the respondent red handed. The marked notes were recovered from the respondent and were seized. His hands were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. Sanction for the prosecution of the accused was obtained under Section 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecuting the respondent-accused under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Prevention of Corruption Act ). The accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges framed under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against the respondent who abjured his guilt. His defence was that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 200. 00 from him and later on, the amount was repaid to him.

( 3 ) THE trial Judge, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, reached the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant had paid bribe of Rs. 200. 00 to the respondent on demand. But, actually, it was repayment of loan which was taken from the accused-respondent on an earlier occasion. Holding so, the trial Judge acquitted him of the charges levelled against him.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

( 5 ) AT the time of hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor, it has been brought to my notice that the sanction to prosecute the respondent under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was marked as Ex. P-13 at the instance of the Investigating Officer PW-11 though one Sri N. R. Khanna, Major General, Chief Engineer, Southern Command Engineers Branch, Pune and R. S. Pai were listed as witnesses to prove the sanction order. But, these persons were not examined and were given up by the prosecution.

( 6 ) THE main question that falls for determination in this criminal appeal is whether the sanction order Ex. P.-13 can be said to be validly proved by the prosecution ?

( 7 ) RELYING on a decision in State v. Gurdeo S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document