[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.700 OF 2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CBI, ACB Mumbai ..Applicant Vs. Shri.Ramjit Pabbar Yadav ..Respondent ... Mr.J.C.Satpute counsel for Applicant Mr.Amendra Mishra Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr.A.S.Shitole APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 DATE : JUNE 30, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicant-Central Bureau of Investigation has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in CBI Special Case No.45 of 1999. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Sections 7, 13 r.w. 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant applied for shifting telephone to his new premises. The Respondent-accused who was [-2-] linesman at the relevant time, demanded bribe amount of Rs.500/- for doing the said work. 3. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant- and the learned advocate for the respondent-accused. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned counsel for the Respondent-accused. 4. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the Respondent-accused mainly on the ground that sanction accorded by the sanctioning authority was faulty. PW 6 Joshi who is Investigating Officer has stated that immediately after receipt of CFSL report, request was made to sanctioning authority to accord sanction for prosecution. The CFSL report Exh.18 is dated 29.4.1999. However, in the present case, the statements of PW 4 Prajapati PW 5 Chauhan were recorded on 24.5.1999 and 25.5.1999. The statement of complainant PW 1 Santosh More and panch witness PW 2 Waghela were recorded on 27.5.1999 and 30.5.1999. In such case, if the papers were immediately sent to the sanctioning authority, the statement of these 3 to 4 witnesses [-3-] and panch witness could not have been sent along with the papers. 5. It appears that when sanction was accorded, the same was done mechanically without any application of mind. The sanctioning authority PW 3 Krishna Chaube in his evidence has clearly admitted that he has reproduced the contents of the draft sanction order sent by Central Bureau of Investigation. Exhibit-12 which is the original sanction order is the computer print out on plain paper having signature of PW 3 Chaube with rubber stamp of his designation below his signature and towards left of the said signature, there is office rubber stamp below it, the date is mentioned in blue ink as 28.6.99. Just below the office address, rubber stamp, there is a printed wording "STAMP ON ORDER". The above observations indicate that either it is the replica of the draft sanction order or it is the draft order itself. 6. Looking to all these facts, it appears that the sanctioning authority has not properly applied his mind. The learned Special Judge has taken into consideration the above facts and thereafter, he [-4-] has acquitted the respondent-accused. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 8. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]