Bombay HC: Whether accused can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act if he was not the final authority in sanctioning the bill of informant?

 As noted earlier, the respondent was not the final authority in sanctioning the bill submitted by the PW-1. The respondent while performing his duty had already raised objections pertaining to the bill submitted by PW-1 and the said bills were forwarded to the Malwan office and therefore there was no reason for respondent even to demand bribe from PW-1. It appears that, as the respondent had raised objections in the bill submitted by the complainant (PW-1), he had grudge against the respondent about the same and therefore had every reason to plant tainted money on the person of respondent. The respondent was thus successful in rebutting the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. {Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2012

Decided On: 23.10.2020

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shridhar Madhavrao Murti

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Gadkari, J.

Citation: 2021 ALLMR(Cri) 2829,MANU/MH/1777/2020.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted under prevention of corruption Act without valid sanction for prosecution?

A valid sanction is foundation of a case instituted under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
sanction accorded by the competent Authority is valid in the eye of
law.  If the validity of the sanction is not proved, as held in the cases of
Madan Mohan Singh, Mohd Iqbal Ahmed and Ameer Jan  (supra), the
prosecution case must fail.  
10. For proving a sanction to be valid, it is necessary that the
prosecution brings on record a proof that  the Sanctioning Authority
had given the sanction in reference to the  facts on which the proposed
prosecution was to be based and these facts may appear on the face of
the sanction or may be proved by extraneous evidence.  Where it is not
done, the sanction would have to be found as defective and it must be
enphasised   that   an   invalid   sanction   cannot   be   considered   to   be
conferring jurisdiction upon the Court to try the case.   The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra) has laid down
the law in this regard and the relevant observations as appearing in

paragraph­8 are reproduced as under.:
     “The other point raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant   seems   to   us   however   to   be   of   considerable
substances.  As the Privy Council pointed out in the case
of  'Gokul Chand Dwarkadas v. The King', AIR 1948 PC
82 at p. 84 (A)the burden of proving that the requisite
sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution and
such   burden   includes   proof   that   the   sanctioning
authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts
on which the proposed prosecution was to be based; and
these facts might appear on the face of the sanction or
might be proved by extraneous evidence.  In the present
case the facts constituting the offence do not appear on
the face of the letter Ex. P. 10.   It was consequently
incumbent   upon   the   prosecution   to   prove   by   other
evidence that the material facts constituting the offence
were placed before the sanctioning authority.  They they
did not attempt to do.”
11. In the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed (supra) the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a
valid sanction is granted by the Sanctioning Authority after satisfying
itself  that  a case  for  sanction  has been  made  out  constituting  the
offence and this should be done in any of the two ways; either by
producing   the   original   sanction   which   itself   contains   the   facts

constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing
evidence   to   show   that   facts   were   placed   before   the   Sanctioning
Authority and the satisfaction was arrived at by it by considering those
facts.     The   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   also   held   that   any   case   instituted
without a proper sanction  must fail  because  this being a  manifest
defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab
initio.  
12. Same principle of law has been reiterated in the recent case
of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized upon the application of mind
on the part of the Sanctioning Authority and this can be seen only by
demonstrating   that   the   facts   necessary   for   constituting   the   alleged
offences   were   placed   before   the   Sanctioning   Authority   and   were
appropriately considered by it while according the sanction.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2006

Rajesh Roopchand Motghare  Vs State of Maharashtra,


         CORAM :  S. B. SHUKRE, J.
         DATED  :  30th SEPT., 2014.
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2668

Print Page