1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 282 of 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Prakash Gajendra Jagtap ...Respondent Mr. V.B.Kondedeshmukh for Applicant . Mr. V.S.Talkute for Respondent. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent faced trial under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Special Case (ACB) No. 4/2006. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by Judgment and Order dated 1st October 2010 acquitted the respondent of all the charges for which he faced the trial. 2 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed appeal. This application is filed to seek leave to file appeal. 3. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Kondedeshmukh on behalf of the State. He submitted that the witnesses in support of the charge against the respondent have stood the test of cross examination and the evidence led by the prosecution witness should have been accepted. He submitted that the view taken by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge on the question of sanction is erroneous and that the sanction granted by the Sub Divisional Officer ought to be treated as proper. 4. I have considered the record. Even if one accepts the stand of the prosecution that witnesses have given evidence in support of the main case as regards allegations of corruption, on the question of sanction, the State should fail. The sanction has been accorded by Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur. The sanction came to be given by the Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur though the Collector was appointing Authority and the Collector was the Competent Authority to grant sanction. It was the specific stand of the respondent that if 3 the Collector is Appointing Authority, the power to accord sanction for initiation of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be delegated to the Officer below the rank of the Collector and that contention was upheld by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge. I see no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge. 5. It has come in the evidence of P.W.3 Shrimant Patole, Sub Divisional Officer who has accorded sanction that on 26th October, 2005, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Pune sent letter along with Investigating Papers to him for according sanction to prosecute the accused. This will clearly go to show that the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption, Pune sent papers to Mr.Patole, who was the Sub Divisional Officer. In my view, the concerned officer of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption, Pune ought to have sent the papers of sanction to appropriate authority after making necessary inquiry as to who is the sanctioning authority. It is surprising that the papers have gone in the hands of wrong person. Even if it is accepted that the papers were sent to the office of the sub-Divisional Officer, Solapur, for 4 sanction, it was the duty of the Sub Divisional Officer Solapur, Mr. Patole, to check up whether he could grant sanction. In my view, this is a fit case where investigation is required to be carried out as to how the papers went to the Sub Divisional officer, Solapur for granting sanction, and as to how he granted sanction. 6. In view of the above, following order is passed to dispose of this Criminal Application. ORDER i) No interference is required on merits as regards the final conclusion drawn by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. No interference is required in the order of acquittal passed on1st October, 2010. Criminal Application is accordingly dismissed. ii) The Collector, Solapur, along with the Appropriate Officer from the concerned Police department are hereby directed to investigate into the matter as how the papers for sanction were forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur. The Collector will also investigate as to how the Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur 5 proceeded to accord sanction. If the Collector, at the end of enquiry comes to the conclusion that there was patent mistake on the part of the Sub Divisional officer, Solapur, he shall initiate proper action against the said Sub Divisional Officer who granted said sanction. Iii) The Collector, Solapur shall complete this job as per this order within a period of six months from the service of copy of this order on him and that he shall file his compliance report before this Court. iv) Registry, to forward a copy of this order to Collector, Solapur, through Principal District & Sessions Judge, Solapur. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)