1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 549/2009 (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MAHESH SHIONARAYAN PANDE) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. APP for Appellant. Mr. S.G.Loney, Advocate, for respondent. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2010. Heard. My attention is invited to order passed by this Court on 8th December, 2009, by which the proceedings are directed to be listed for final disposal at the stage of admission while granting leave to appeal. Hence, this appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent. 2. By this appeal, the appellate State has challenged the validity and legality of the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2009, passed by learned Special Judge, Wardha, in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 4/2001, whereby the respondent was acquitted of offence 2 punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The main contention on behalf of the appellant is that the view of the trial Court that Sub Divisional Officer cannot grant sanction for prosecution is not proper. It is further contended that trial Court ought to have given more weightage to the statement and evidence of witnesses recorded in departmental enquiry. Thus, learned APP prayed for, to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and order. 4. On the other hand learned counsel on behalf of respondent/accused took me through the impugned judgment and made reference to the ruling in Sakharam Trymbak Patil vs. Stae of Maharashtra, reported in 1993 (1) Bom. C.R. 134 to argue that sanction ought to be granted by the authority who is competent to remove the public servant concerned. Thus, sanction accorded by Sub Divisional Officer to prosecute Patwari appointed by Collector would be void ab-initio and vitiated the prosecution. Reference is also made to the ruling in Bhaurao Marotrao Manekar vs. State of Maharshtra, reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 445, in which the Bombay High Court held that sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act granted by Sub Divisional Officer was bad and it invalidated the trial 3 since the learned Special Judge could not have taken cognizance of the offences due to illegal sanction. 5 In both the cases cited, the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused were set aside. No ruling contrary to these rulings are cited before me. 6 Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order by which it was held that sanction was not properly obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the accused/public servant who is Talathi. 7. Even otherwise, the appellant is seeking to impugn judgment and order of acquittal. In view of ruling in Sayed Petha vs. Public Prosecutor, reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 3488, in which it is held that High Court does not ordinarily set aside the judgment of acquittal in cases where two views are possible, although the view of the appellate Court is more probable one, as it is settled legal position that substantial and compelling reasons are required to upset trial court decision. Thus, unless very substantial and compelling reasons are made out to overrule the finding and order of acquittal and unless conclusions of the trial Court are wrong in the facts of the case, or manifestly unjust and unreasonable, there would be no justification for this Court to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal. 4 8 Since, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit.