((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2089 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Jitendrakumar J. Sagar Respondent Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP. for applicant. None for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14th January 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned APP for the State. The respondent-accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Apart from passing the order of acquittal on merits, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the order of sanction at Exhibit-29 is not valid. 2. I have perused the impugned judgement and notes of evidence. PW-4 was examined to prove the sanction. PW-4 is the Under Secretary of Ministry of Health Affairs and Sports. In examination in chief, the witness has stated: ((-2-)) "... ... All the papers provided to me were in English. After examination of papers I have send same to Central Vigilance Commissioner, for opinion. They recommend sanction for prosecution of accused. After receipt of above opinion, I have placed the same along with all case papers to Ministry of Labour. Minister being competent authority approved sanction on behalf of President of India and thereafter I have communicated said sanction order to C.B.I. Sanction order bears my signature, contents of the same are true and correct, it is marked as Exh.29." In the cross examination the witness has stated as under : "... ... There is no delegation of power on me for issuing sanction order. It is true that post of accused Sagar is higher than my post. Today I have not brought any original papers. Along with papers of investigation and report I have received draft of sanction order. I have not applied my mind but simply I have communicated the sanction order. it is not true to say that I have issued false order mechanically without power. It is not true that I have no power to convey sanction order." 3. In the light of the aforesaid admissions on the part of PW-4, the learned Judge held that the order of sanction was not valid. In view of the admissions of PW-4 which are referred to above, the view taken by the learned Trial Judge is certainly a possible view. The learned Judge held that the order of sanction ((-3-)) is not proved to be valid. In view of this finding, no case is made out for grant of leave to prefer an appeal. The application is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)