1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.463/2006 The State of Maharashtra Through : Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. Appellant. V E R S U S Pundlik Motiram baviskar and another. Respondents. Shri S.D. Kaldate, APP for appellant. Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 21 ST JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. In the present appeal, appellant-state sought leave to file appeal against judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.10.2005 rendered by learned Special Judge, Amalner in Sessions Case No.9/1999, acquitting the respondent/original accused No.1 for the offence punishable under section 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and also acquitting the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under section 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. I have perused impugned judgment and order of acquittal 2 dated 04.10.2005 as well as record and proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 4. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that : Accused No.1, Pundlik Motiram Baviskar was working as Gramsevak Karanji Tq. Parola Dist. Jalgaon and accused No.2 Devram Tarachand Bhil was working as Labourer in Karanji Tq. Parola Dist. Jalgaon. It is alleged that complainant Pravin was having jeep as well as driving licence. His jeep met with an accident on 21.6.1995 at village Karanji Tq. Parola. His three relatives namely Harshada Ashok Chaudhary, Rahul Chandrakant and Jagannath Khanderao Dhande expired in the said accident, and Crime was registered with Parola Police Station hence he was in need of death extract of his relatives for filing compensation claim against the truck owner involved in the said accident. Accordingly, he obtained a letter from the Parola police, station addressed to the Gramsevak of village Karanji for the issuance of death extracts of his relatives. Accordingly, it is alleged that, on 5.9.1995 the complainant approached to the accused No.1 and requested for issuance of death extracts of three relatives but the accused No.1 demanded Rs.150/- illegal gratification therefor. Pursuant to said demand, the complainant Pravin gave Rs.50/- to accused No.1 which was with him and assured to pay the balance amount of Rs.100/- later on. Accordingly, death extracts were issued 3 to the complainant but his driving licence was pledged with the accused No.1 for the payment of balance amount of Rs.100/- on the same day i.e. 5.9.1995. It is further alleged that on 11.9.1995 trap was laid in a hotel near Panchayat Samity Office at Parola and accused No.2 accepted balance amount of bribe money of Rs.100/- at the instance of accused No.1 in the said hotel and bribe money of Rs.100/- was seized from the possession of accused No.2. 5. First Information Report came to be lodged and accused Nos. 1 and 2 faced trial for the afore stated offences. Prosecution has examined in as much as 7 witnesses to substantiate the said charges i.e. PW 1 Pravin Madhukar Chaudhary complainant, PW 2 Chintaman Prabhakar Palkhe, PW 3 Rajesh Agrawal Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, PW 4 Ramkrushna Nathu Patil panch, PW 5 Mohammad Hanif Abdul Razzak who prepared map of the spot, PW 6 Anil Vinayak Mahajan friend of complainant who was allegedly present at the time of First demand and PW 7 Kalidas Shankar Suryawanshi Dy. S.P. and Investigating officer. 6. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial judge arrived at the conclusion that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not guilty for the charges levelled against them, and consequently, acquitted them therefrom by judgment and order dated 4 th October, 2005. 7. Being aggrieved and dis satisfied by the said judgment and order 4 of acquittal, the appellant – state has preferred present appeal and sought leave therein to file appeal against the same. 8. At the outset, PW 3 Rajesh Agrawal who allegedly issued sanction order has admitted in his cross examination that he had received draft of the sanction order from Anti Corruption Bureau, Bombay, he has gone through the said draft of sanction, but he has not made any changes in the draft of sanction. Moreover, PW 7 Dy.S.P. admitted in his cross examination that demand of the money for returning driving licence is absent in the order Exh. 45. Bribe money of Rs.100/- was not agreed to be paid to the accused No.1 for issuance of the death extracts on 11.9.1995. Learned Judge also observed that time and place of demand and acceptance of bribe money money Rs.100/- on 11.9.1995 also absent in the sanction order Exh.45 and consequently came to the conclusion that PW 3 Rajesh Agrawal has issued the sanction order dated 14.2.1996 without application of mind and held that said sanction is invalid. It is also observed in the said impugned judgment that PW 1 Pravin complainant had already obtained death extracts from accused No.1 on 5.9.1995 and therefore it is quite improbable that accused No.1 would have demanded and accepted Rs.100/- through accused No.2 on 11.9.1995 at a different place of his office. 9. Mr. P.B. Patil learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on 5 the observations in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan reported at 2007 (2) CACC 334 wherein it is observed that :- “We agree that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not “. 9. After analyzing evidence on record, the view adopted by learned trial judge is a possible view to be adopted and no perversity is found therein as well as reasoning adopted by learned trial judge also cannot be faulted with and, therefore, present prayer for seeking leave to file appeal deserves to be rejected. 10. In the result, prayer made by the Appellant/Applicant seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4 th October, 2005 stands refused, and consequently, present appeal stands dismissed. 11. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE aaa/463.06 *****