Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Pune, in Special A/C Case No. 6 of 1991, whereby the prosecution against the respondent Kalu Sitaram Mane for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was dropped. The respondent was a public servant working as Administrative Officer in the office of the Director of Education and Development, Maharashtra State, Pune. The complainant Dattatraya Sankpal, a temporary watchman, alleged that the respondent demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000 to continue his services, and later reduced it to Rs.1,000 as first instalment. The complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, which laid a trap. However, the trial court dropped the prosecution on the ground that no valid sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act was obtained. The High Court, per S.B. Shukre, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's order was not perverse and did not call for interference. The court noted that the requirement of sanction is mandatory and its absence renders the trial void. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The trial court dropped proceedings against the accused on the ground that no valid sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authority. The High Court held that the order dropping prosecution was not perverse and did not warrant interference, as the sanction requirement is mandatory and its absence vitiates the trial. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - The State appealed against the order dropping prosecution. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the trial court's decision was based on a valid legal ground, and the appeal lacked merit. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dropping the prosecution against the respondent for want of valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the appeal against such order is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's order dropping the prosecution against the respondent.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory
- Lack of sanction renders trial void ab initio
- Appellate court cannot interfere with acquittal unless perverse
- Evidence of complainant must be corroborated in trap cases
