APEAL.521-01 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 521 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Vs. Vinayak Narayan Shirodkar ...Respondent *** Mr. P. S. Hingorani, APP for the Appellant. Mr. N. S. Mundargi, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2001, passed by the Special Judge, Gadhinglaj whereby the the Special Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under S. 13(1)(a) read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). 2. The short question which falls for consideration is – whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused only on the ground APEAL.521-01 - 2 - that sanction was not given by the authority, who was competent to appoint and remove the accused from the services? The trial Court has held that the Collector was the competent authority to appoint and remove the respondent, who was working as Talathi at the relevant time, and as such sanction given by the Sub-Divsional Officer was bad-in-law. 3. The prosecution has examined PW 2 Subhash Baburao Khorode, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj, who was pleased to grant sanction to prosecute the accused. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that the Collector had appointed the accused as Talathi. He also admitted that on the date of granting sanction, he was subordinate to the Collector, Kolhapur. In view of this admission, it is abundantly clear that he was neither the appointing authority of the accused nor did he had powers to remove the accused from the services. This being the position, he could not have granted the sanction to prosecute the accused under S. 19 of the said Act. In my view, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, in acquitting the respondent/accused, since the sanction was not properly accorded by the authority which was competent to appoint the accused. No case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Hence, the criminal appeal is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]