AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The appellant is the State seeking to question the acquittal of the accused. Though the trial court has found that the charges against the respondents had been established on facts, the court below has proceeded to address the question whether there was a valid sanction preceding the prosecution and has held as follows:-
For a sanction to be valid, it must be established that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged. In the instant case, Exhibit P.27 does not mention as to when complainant applied for copy of mutation in his name, before whom and which of the accused demanded bribe and when for this purpose. The facts stated in Ex. P.8 disclose that A-2 demanded bribe for himself and A. 1 asked PW. 2 to pay the same either through him or pay directly to A.2. If that were so, A.1 cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, and 13(1)(d) of Act No. 49 of 1988. The facts clearly disclose Section 12 of the Act No. 49 of 1988 is attracted in respect of A. 1. But sanction for the said offence has not been given. Hence, it is doubtful that the competent authority has applied his mind to the facts relevant for decision making process when granting the sanction for prosecution. The sanction letter Ex. P-27 does not disclose the reasons for opinion expressed in support of the sanction. There is no reference in Ex. P.27 in respect of the explanation Ex. P-13 and Ex. P-21 and Ex. P-14. There is no acceptance of bribe amount by A.1. Nevertheless, PW. 14 granted the sanction for prosecution of A.1 also for the offence punishable u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) of Act No. 49 of 1988. Therefore the order granting the sanction is not demonstrative of the factual circumstances correctly. As such, I hold that PW. 14 has not applied his mind correctly by personally going through the complaint Ex. P.8. Therefore, Ex. P.27 sanction letter suffer from legal infirmity.
The learned Counsel for the appellant would seek to point out that the reasoning of the court below in acquitting the accused on the ground that there was no valid sanction is incorrect, in that, the finding as to Exhibit P.8 not disclosing the true and correct facts as to the allegations made against the accused and charges having been framed notwithstanding the vague assertions in the complaint, the sanctioning authority could not have granted sanction, is an incorrect finding. Though the learned Counsel would take this court at length through the contents of the complaint and the sanction order to contend that it could not be said that the sanctioning authority was not justified in having granted the order of sanction or that it could not be demonstrated that there was no application of mind etc., it is found that there are inconsistencies in the complaint and the evidence tendered, in that, though it is stated that accused no. 1 had demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- payable to accused no. 2, it is to be noticed that at the time of laying the trap, accused no. 1 was not at all involved as the raiding team first has approached the house of accused no. 1 and finding that he was not at home they had then proceeded to the house of accused, no. 2. This circumstance itself is doubtful as it is also the case of the complainant that after making a demand of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant, accused no. 1 had taken the complainant to the house of accused no. 2 and there, accused no. 2 is said to have repeated the demand for bribe and had claimed that normally, for such work, he would call upon the applicants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- whereas in the case of the complainant, he was making an exception and was accepting Rs. 1,000/-. There was no reason as to why the raiding party, as on the date of the trap, should have first approached the house of accused no. 1, when it was known to the complainant, that money was to be paid to accused no. 2. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to offer explanation that the documents were retained by accused no. 1 and that unless the documents were brought to the house of accused no. 2, he was not in a position to complete the transaction in affixing his signature to the required documents. If this indeed was the situation, the bribe amount being paid even without the work being done is doubtful. Therefore, the finding of the court that the sanctioning authority had not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances in proceeding to sanction the prosecution and the charges having been framed on the allegations in the complaint was, therefore, inconsistent and could not have been taken forward and it is only on account of such invalid sanction being granted, that the prosecution had proceeded further.
Therefore, there is no warrant for interference by this court insofar as the court below having held that the sanction granted was invalid and consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.