The Petitioner in the first petition is a Senior Inspector of Police and at the time of the filing of the petition was attached to Thane Railway Police Station.He joined the Maharashtra police in 1975 as Police Sub-Inspector.Thereafter, his services were made over to Bombay police in 1977 on the same post.It is the case of the petitioner, that, he had a successful career of 27 years of Police service.The same is clean and unblemished.It is alleged that one Altaf Kadir Shaikh had purchased Shop No. 1, 63/65, Sayed House, Cadel Road, Mahim, Mumbai-16 in October 1999 from one Khalid Ahmed Basekhan.In June, 2000 one Iqbal claimed rights in his shop and alongwith Khalid Ahmed Basekhan started harassing and threatening Altaf Kadir Shaikh.Altaf Kadir Shaikh also received threats from unknown persons.He lodged a N.C. at Mahim Police Station.The complainant Ahmed Ismail Shaikh @ Raja Shaikh was helping the complainant Altaf and therefore he also received threats.On 16.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs the complainant Ahmed alongwith Altaf Shaikh attended the Mahim Police Station and as per the instructions of P.I.Shri Sanghai, PSI Shinde recorded the statement of Altaf Shaikh.The Complainant came to know that an offence has been registered at Mahim Police Station against him and three others.PSI Rajendra Naghbire had registered at Mahim police station, C.R. No. 230 of 2000 under Section 454, 457, 380, 451, 506(II), 34, 120(B), I.P.C. r/w. 23, 25 Arms Act on complaint of Shri.The further investigation of this case was handed over to P.I.Sanghai as per the orders of Sr.P.L.Jedhe of Mahim Police Station.After confirmation on 20.7.2000 at 16.30 hrs, the complainant alongwith Altaf Shaikh met D.C.P. Zone IV, Mumbai Shri Kadam and informed him about the offence registered against them and submitted representation to DCP Zone IV.On the same day at 19.00 hrs the complainant met P.I. Shri Sanghai at Mahim police Station, P.I. Sanghai called PSI Shinde.At that time P.I. Sanghai told the complainant that Altaf Shaikh would not get the shop valued Rs. 40,00,000/ so easily.In order to avoid arrest of complainant, Altaf Shaikh and 2 others, an amount Rs. 20,00,000/ be paid as bribe.After discussion the bribe amount was reduced to 10,00,000/-.The complainant showed his inability to pay the bribe amount.The facts are undisputed.JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.Both petitions involve identical questions of fact and law and were heard together.They are being disposed off by this common judgment.It is directed against an order dated 7.5.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2002 by Special Judge Mumbai in Complaint ACB/BMU Criminal No. 29 of 2000 and the Sanction Order dated 6.12.2002 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Mumbai.Therefore, PSI Shinde told the complainant to come after 2-3 days.At 19.30 hrs the complainant was produced before Sr.P.I.Shri Jedhe.The complainant has stated that Sr.P.I.Jedhe told the complainant that his work will be done and he will have to pay the amount as per the say of PI Sanghai and the complainant was allowed to go.When the complainant attended Mahim Police Station on 25.7.2000 at 19.00 hrs as per the call from PSI Shinde, he met PI Sanghai.Thereafter PSI Shinde was called by P.I. Sanghai.P.I. Sanghai then demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for not arresting the complainant and others.The complainant accompanied by panch witness Shri Dhumal met P.I. Sanghai at Main gate of Mahim Police Station at 18.25 hrs.At that time P.I. Sanghai asked for amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-.Over this the complainant told that he will pay Rs. 3,00,000/-after taking the same from Shri Dhumal, who is his relative.The complainant was asked to wait till the arrival of PSI Shinde.Thus, it is alleged that on 26th July, 2000 at about 6.00 p.m. Shri Sanghai (Petitioner in first petition) attempted to obtain a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for himself and on behalf of the Petitioner in the second petition from the Complainant as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do official Acts or for showing favour or for bearing to show disfavour in exercise of their official functions to the Complainant in the matter of not arresting him and others in an offence registered against him at Mahim Police Station.I.P.C. r/w. 3, 25 Arms Act.On 27.7.2000 the Petitioner was arrested but was released on bail on the following day as per the order of the court.During the course of the investigation, statements of various persons were recorded.A draft sanction order was sent to the Competent Authority for getting sanction to prosecute the Petitioner Accused and one P.S.I.Shinde.However, the Learned Special Judge while rejecting this Application observed that the matter be referred to the Sanctioning Authority for Re-consideration.The Special Judge directed that after the Sanctioning Authority takes necessary steps, the A.C.B can approach the Special Court.The order passed on 7.5.2002 and the subsequent act of the Sanctioning Authority of grant of sanction is under challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The second Writ Petition is by co-accused Dilip Shinde and the facts and circumstances narrated therein are identical.After making such observations, the Special Judge rejected the application of the prosecution and referred the matter back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.Thus, the Special Judge granted one opportunity to the Authority to consider the matter of sanction afresh.The Sanctioning Authority has reconsidered the whole matter and accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioners before me.I have perused the application which was preferred by the prosecution before the Special Judge.The petitioner did not make any application before the Special Judge but the prosecution applied for closure of the case.On the prosecutions application the Learned Judge made the observations as above and rejected the same.The Learned Judge only referred the matter for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.The other argument is that the Special Judge did not grant any opportunity to the petitioners before observing that the matter deserves to be referred back for reconsideration of the Sanctioning Authority.In my view, the Learned Judge was considering the application of the prosecution for closure of the said case/proceedings therein.

Cited provisions: Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code