Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Mohan s/o Laxman Bhandare, who was elected as a member and later Up-Sarpanch of Aurad Shahajani village panchayat. Fulchand Madhavrao Bondge, an employee of the panchayat, applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to open a Permit Room and Beer Bar. The panchayat initially passed a resolution granting permission on 14.08.2018, but after an objection from the Head Master of a nearby school, the resolution was cancelled. The applicant opposed the grant of NOC. Subsequently, Fulchand's son, Bhagwat Bondge, filed a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) alleging that the applicant and the Gramsevak demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000 for issuing the NOC. A trap was laid, and the applicant was caught accepting the bribe. The ACB filed a chargesheet, and the applicant filed a discharge application under Section 227 of CrPC, which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Nilanga, on 28.01.2020. The applicant challenged this order in the High Court. The main legal issues were whether the discharge application was correctly rejected and whether sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was required. The applicant argued that he was a public servant removable by the State Government and that no sanction was obtained, making the prosecution invalid. The State opposed, contending that the applicant was not a public servant under the PC Act. The court analyzed the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the PC Act and found that the applicant, as an Up-Sarpanch, was a public servant removable by the State Government. Since no sanction was obtained, the order rejecting discharge was set aside, and the applicant was discharged. The court also noted that the material on record did not establish a prima facie case against the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Discharge - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The applicant, an Up-Sarpanch, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe for issuing a No Objection Certificate for a Permit Room and Beer Bar. The court held that since the applicant was a public servant removable by the State Government, sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was mandatory before taking cognizance. In the absence of such sanction, the order rejecting discharge was set aside and the applicant was discharged. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Prima Facie Case - Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court examined the material on record and found that the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe were not supported by credible evidence. The complainant's son had filed the complaint, but the trap was laid without proper verification. The court held that no prima facie case was made out against the applicant, warranting discharge. (Paras 4-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order rejecting discharge of the applicant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The revision application is allowed. The order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Nilanga, below Exh. 21 in Special Case (ACB) No. 01 of 2019 is set aside. The applicant is discharged from the said case.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is mandatory
- Discharge when no prima facie case
- Scope of revision against discharge rejection
