1 cri.appln.2930.10 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2930 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Shri. Sunil Jagannath Galande ... Respondent Mr.P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C. This application by the State is for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th March, 2010 passed by the Special Court acquitting respondents of the offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Court has acquitted the respondents on two grounds firstly that the order of sanction for prosecuting the respondent who is a police constable is not proper and secondly it has disbelieved the prosecution witnesses. As regards the sanction, PW 3 the sanctioning authority admitted in his cross examination that he has not mentioned the grounds of his satisfaction in the order granting sanction to prosecute the respondent. He did not recollect whether in pre-trap panchanama necessary instructions 2 cri.appln.2930.10 were given and whether those instructions were strictly observed. He admitted that along with papers he had also received draft sanction order which was returned to the concerned office after according sanction. He further admitted that the record did show that there was another person by name Jaffery at the spot while the alleged conversation took place between the respondent, the complainant and the panch. Statement to that effect has been made by PW 6 P.I. Chaudhary. The special court observed that in that circumstance it was the duty of the sanctioning authority to ascertain and seek explanation of PW 6 P.I. Chaudhary for not interrogating Mr. Jaffery and not recording his statement though he is supposed to have played a vital role at the time of raid. There is no explanation whatsoever for these glaring defects and lapses while according the sanction. Therefore, the Special Judge has observed that the sanction seems to have been issued in a mechanical manner without application of mind and as such is vitiated. In view of the fact that the sanction granted to prosecute respondent is vitiated, the very foundation of the prosecution goes away. The benefit of this must go to the respondent. Hence, application is rejected. [Judge]