The Bombay High Court dealt with an appeal from the State challenging the acquittal of the respondent in a bribery case. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had set a trap after the accused Talathi allegedly demanded bribes for updating land records. The trial court had acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in evidence and invalid sanctioning authority. The High Court, while disagreeing with some findings on demand and acceptance, ultimately dismissed the appeal due to the invalidity of the sanction, as it was issued by a Sub-Divisional Officer instead of the Collector.

1. Introduction:

• Appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of Ramdas Bhagwan Vairat in a bribery case by the Special Judge, Satara.

2. Issues with ACB Cases:

• The court pointed out recurring issues in Anti-Corruption Bureau cases, such as unsatisfactory evidence on demand and acceptance of bribes and defective sanctions.

3. Acquittal Grounds:

• The respondent was acquitted because of insufficient evidence on demand and acceptance, and because the sanctioning authority (Sub-Divisional Officer) was not competent.

4. Appeal Scope and Presumption of Innocence:

• The court emphasized that interference in acquittals is only permissible when the findings are perverse.

5. Prosecution Witnesses:

• Four witnesses were examined, including the complainant, trap panch, investigating officer, and sanctioning authority.

6. Background of the Case:

• The complainant, Jaysing Pharande, approached the ACB after Vairat allegedly demanded a bribe for updating land records related to his sister's property.

7. Trap Details:

• A trap was set by the ACB after Pharande’s complaint, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe.

8. Inconsistencies in Evidence:

• Minor variances in testimonies led to the trial court dismissing the case. The High Court found these variances trivial.

9. Positive Anthracene Test:

• The court noted that the anthracene powder test was positive on the tainted money, proving the bribe had been accepted.

10. Invalid Sanction:

• The key issue was the sanction granted by a Sub-Divisional Officer, who lacked authority under the law. The proper authority should have been the Collector.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

   • Section 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
   • Section 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
   • Section 19(1)(b): Requirement of valid sanction for prosecution.

2. Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:

   • Section 7(4) & 13(4): Discusses powers of the Collector and Sub-Divisional Officers regarding appointments and sanctions.

3. Constitution of India, Article 311:

   • Protection to civil servants from being dismissed by an authority subordinate to their appointing authority.

Ratio Decidendi:

The judgment was based on the principle that a sanction for prosecution must be granted by a competent authority. In this case, the Sub-Divisional Officer was not competent to sanction the prosecution under Article 311 of the Constitution, making the sanction invalid. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed despite the court’s disagreement on the trial court's findings regarding demand and acceptance.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Corruption Law, Administrative Law

Anti-Corruption Bureau, Prevention of Corruption Act, invalid sanction, judicial acquittal, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, Article 311