Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Ramesh Khandu Salve, a BMC Inspector, charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.300 from a fruit vendor for helping obtain a license. The trial court acquitted the accused primarily on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was invalid, as the sanctioning authority (PW-3) admitted receiving a draft sanction in a sealed cover and did not apply independent mind. The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the sanction was invalid and that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The court also observed that the complainant and panch witnesses were interested and their testimony was unreliable. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Validity of Sanction - Sanctioning authority admitted receiving draft sanction in sealed cover and did not apply independent mind - Held that such sanction is invalid and vitiates the prosecution (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 378 - Scope of Interference - Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable - Held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse (Paras 7-8). C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested Witness - Complainant and panch witnesses were interested and their testimony was not reliable - Held that acquittal based on unreliable evidence is justified (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sanction for prosecution granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was valid, and whether the acquittal of the accused by the trial court was justified.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The acquittal of the respondent by the trial court is upheld.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution must be granted after independent application of mind
- Use of draft sanction provided by investigating agency vitiates the sanction
- Acquittal can be based on invalid sanction even if other evidence is sufficient
- Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal unless perverse
