[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1132 OF 2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Ananda Mallikarjun Bet and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Rajesh More APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 DATE : APRIL 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge Kolhapur in Special Case No. 14 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r.w. 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced by him as well as the judgment and order. [-2-] 3. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent-accused mainly on the ground that the sanction order is not in consonance with the legal provisions and therefore, it is invalid. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that sanctioning authority has not applied his mind before grant of sanction. The evidence of sanctioning authority shows that the Investigating Agency provided a model draft and the sanctioning authority prepared the sanction order as per the model draft. The sanctioning authority has not stated anywhere that he has applied his mind independently and thereafter, he accorded sanction. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 4. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]