Bombay High Court
Shrikant S/O Shriniwas Sowale vs State Of Mah. Thr. Dy. Sp, Anti ... on 27 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13040
1 apeal 264.11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 264/2011
Shrikant S/o Shriniwas Sowale, : APPELLANT
Aged about 53 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Gadge Nagar, Buldana, District Buldana.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, : RESPONDENT
Through Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau,
Buldana, District Buldana.
Mr. Avinash Gupta, Senior Advocate a/b. Mr. A.A. Gupta, Advocate for the
Appellant,
Mr. S.S. Hulke, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
CORAM: NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
Date of reserving the judgment : 17.11.2025
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 27.11.2025
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti- Corruption), Buldana in Special (Anti-Corruption) Case No. 01/2006, convicting the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a 2 apeal 264.11.odt further period of three months. The accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a Complaint was filed by the complainant namely Vijay Namdeorao Hedau, aged 44 years, Physical Training Instructor, Shivaji Mahavidyalaya, Chikhali, District-Buldana, personally to the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Buldana, stating therein that he was serving at the aforesaid place. Since last 16 years, he is serving as Physical Training Instructor at Shivaji Mahavidyalaya, Chikhali and is having a daughter named Dipika, aged 15 years. It is stated that his daughter was suffering from appendicitis due to which he had to spend about Rs.9,000/- for her treatment. He had prepared medical reimbursement bill and submitted it in the office of Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Buldana, for sanction of the said money from the government. In the month of March, he got the bill sanctioned. In the month of April 2005, the bill was submitted to the Office of Pay Unit at Buldana. Thereafter, on 16/8/2005, Shri Sowale, (accused) the Clerk, in the said office teleponed him and said, "I will get your medical reimbursement bill passed. You come and meet me at the 3 apeal 264.11.odt office of Pay Unit, Buldana." Accordingly, on 18/8/2005, after completing his morning duty in the College, at about 12 o'clock when he went to the said office, accused was present there. When the complainant met accused he said, "Your medical reimbursement bill is of about Rs.8000/- to Rs. 8500/- and 10% of it comes to Rs.800/- to Rs.850/-. You give me Rs.700/- and I will get your bill passed." The complainant said that he did not have money and that the demand made by accused is more. Further it is alleged that the bill is pending since last four months. The accused asked to give Rs. 500/- and promised that he will immediately get the bill passed. Accused accordingly called complainant to pay him Rs. 500/- before 2 O' Clock. Thereupon, having no other alternative, complainant agreed to give him amount and left from there.
The accused made demand of Rs.500/- from the complainant as bribe for reimbursement of medical bill amounting to Rs.8000 to Rs.8500/- on 18/8/2005. Complainant states that he was not willing to give bribe to the accused. The complainant further stated that he neither has any enmity nor any money transaction with the accused. Accordingly complainant requested to apprehend the accused red handed while accepting bribe and take legal action against him.
3. The complaint (Exh. 12) in the present case was recorded in writing by PW-3, Shri Himmat Jadhav. Two panch witnesses, serving in 4 apeal 264.11.odt the Jivan Vikas Pradhikaran, Buldana, were requisitioned to attend the ACB office by a letter marked as Exh.22. PW-2 Shri Dattatraya Dhondge and Shri Suresh Arakh complied with the directions of their controlling authority, verified the contents of the complaint, and affixed their signatures thereon. ASI Shri Pachpande demonstrated the use of anthracene powder and ultra-violet lamps, and the complainant, PW-1 Shri Vijay, handed over a currency note of Rs. 500/- (No. OAE/139542) for the purpose of the trap. The tainted note was placed in the upper shirt pocket of the complainant, while other articles in his possession, including cash of Rs. 135/-, were kept in his pant pocket. The formalities of the pre- trap panchnama (Exh. 15) were duly completed.
4. The raiding party, comprising the complainant, panch witnesses, Dy. S.P. Shri Jadhav, and his staff, including ASI Shri Pachpande, proceeded to the office of the accused. The accused, accompanied by the complainant and Panch No. 1, went near a tea stall and later near the entrance of the Administrative Building. The accused demanded Rs. 500/- from the complainant for sanctioning a medical reimbursement bill. The complainant handed over the bribe amount, which the accused accepted and placed in his pant pocket. The complainant then gave the pre-determined signal, and the accused was apprehended by Police Constable Shri Lahane. The bribe amount was recovered and verified against the pre-recorded number.
5 apeal 264.11.odt
5. Post-trap formalities, including verification of the currency note and exposure to ultra-violet light, were conducted in the chamber of Shri Kale. Dy. S.P. Shri Jadhav seized the bribe amount, the pant of the accused, and copies of the medical reimbursement bill. Upon completion of the post-trap panchnama (Exh. 18), PW-3 Shri Jadhav lodged a complaint on behalf of the State at Police Station Buldana (Exh. 25).
6. On the basis of the complaint, an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 was registered against the accused (FIR, Exh. 26). After investigation, the papers were forwarded to the ACB, Amravati, and sanction to prosecute the accused was granted by PW-4 Shri Ithape vide Exh. 32. Subsequently, PW-3 Shri Jadhav filed a charge-sheet against the accused before the Special Court, Buldana, on 07.01.2006.
7. The charge for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d) read with 13(2) of the Act of 1988, was framed against the accused, as per Exh. 06. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His plea is recorded at Exhibit 07. The defence of the accused is one of total denial and false implication. He has contended that he was not entrusted with the work of sanctioning the reimbursement bill of the complainant.
6 apeal 264.11.odt
8. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses, namely PW 1 - Vijay Namdeorao Hedau (Exh. 11), PW 2 - Dattatraya Madhavrao Dhondge (Exh. 14), PW 3 - Himmat Mahadu Jadhav, Police Inspector (Exh. 21), and PW 4 - Ram Ambadas Ithape (Exh. 30). After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded at Exh. 34.
9. The Trial Court, upon a comprehensive appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, recorded the finding that the medical reimbursement bill of PW-1 Vijay had remained pending in the Pay Unit Office, Buldana, and that the appellant-accused was entrusted with its processing during the relevant period of August 2005. The Court noted that the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-1 and the corroborating circumstances, established that on 16.08.2005 the accused contacted PW-1 and directed him to meet at the office, and that on 18.08.2005 the accused made a specific demand of illegal gratification of ₹500 for sanctioning the said bill.
PW-1, being unwilling to accede to the said demand, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which thereafter arranged a trap. During the trap proceedings, both PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that the accused reiterated his demand for the bribe amount at the entrance of the Administrative Building and thereafter accepted the tainted currency from 7 apeal 264.11.odt PW-1. The raiding team, which had kept surveillance, immediately apprehended the accused, and the tainted currency note was recovered from the pocket of the accused in the cabin of one Mr. Kale.
The defence suggestion that the accused had accepted the money at the instance of Mr. Kale was rejected by the Trial Court as being wholly unsubstantiated and unsupported by the evidence on record. On the contrary, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved, beyond reasonable doubt, both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, a public servant, thereby establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988.
The Trial Court further concluded that the accused, by abusing his official position and by demanding and accepting the bribe amount, had obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage, thus constituting criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. It was on these findings that the Trial Court recorded the conviction of the accused. The said judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.
10. Heard Mr. Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. S.S. Hulke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
8 apeal 264.11.odt
11. Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the sanction order issued by the competent authority is invalid. He submitted that the sanctioning authority had relied upon a draft sanction prepared by a subordinate officer and had issued the sanction order without independent application of mind. According to the learned Senior Counsel, a perusal of the sanction order reveals that it makes no reference to the documents received by the authority, nor does it indicate that such documents were sought. The draft sanction, which contained the opinion of the Subordinate Officer, was not accompanied by the relevant material documents. Moreover, the sanction order bears a date prior to the date on which the requisite remarks or opinion were received.
12. He further argued that the sanctioning authority failed to note that the complainant's medical reimbursement bill had already been passed on 16.08.2005 and sent to the Treasury two days prior to the trap. The Subordinate Officer who provided the draft sanction was not examined as a witness, and the correspondence by which the sanctioning authority sought the opinion of the subordinate officer is not on record. Consequently, it is doubtful whether the relevant facts of the case were actually placed before the Subordinate Officer. There is no material or discussion to indicate what was placed before the sanctioning authority to 9 apeal 264.11.odt enable him to form an independent opinion. Several deficiencies in the sanction order create doubt as to whether it reflects the independent application of mind of the authority. The learned Counsel also drew attention to the use of the word "Abhipraya" (meaning "opinion") in the vernacular order, contending that it was translated as "remarks," which he argued further evidences the absence of independent application of mind.
13. It was submitted that the sanction order is, therefore, void ab initio and vitiates the trial itself. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized that a valid and legal sanction is a condition precedent to the trial of a public servant, and in the absence of such sanction, the accused cannot be lawfully tried. Reliance was placed on the judgments in Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526; Bhagwan Mahadeo Sathe v. State & Anr., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1221; and Mohd. Abdul Naim s/o Mohd. Abdul Halim (through LRs) v. State of Maharashtra , Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2005, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.
14. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that there are contradictions in the versions of the complainant and the shadow witness. He submitted that the recitals in the panchnama (Exhibit 18) relating to Panch No. 2 are inconsistent with the statements of the complainant and the shadow witness. According to him, the demand and acceptance of the 10 apeal 264.11.odt bribe have not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution, given the contradictions and omissions in the witness testimonies. He reiterated that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction had been sought and granted by the competent authority after being satisfied that a prima facie case for sanction existed. A valid sanction, he submitted, is intended to safeguard a public servant against frivolous or malicious prosecution.
15. In response, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had proved both the demand and acceptance of the bribe through the testimonies of the complainant as well as the shadow witness. It was contended that the sanction order issued by the competent authority is valid and free from any infirmities. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Criminal) No. 13997 of 2024, wherein it was held that mere omissions, errors, or irregularities in the matter of granting sanction do not vitiate the proceedings unless such defect results in a failure of justice. It was further argued that the mere fact that the sanctioning authority considered a draft prepared by a Subordinate Officer does not nullify the sanction order.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant reiterated that the sanction order clearly demonstrates non-application of mind, as the 11 apeal 264.11.odt subordinate officer's draft appears to have been adopted without independent consideration. He also drew attention to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who stated that the complainant's medical reimbursement bill had already been forwarded to the Treasury Office, Buldana, on 16.08.2005, prior to the trap conducted on 18.08.2005. It was contended that this establishes that a false case was instituted against the accused.
17. At the outset, it is imperative to examine and appraise the evidence adduced by the prosecution before embarking upon an analysis or arriving at any conclusion.
18. PW-1, Complainant a Physical Training Instructor at Shivaji Mahavidyalaya, Chikhli since 1990, deposed that his daughter, Dipika, underwent an appendix surgery in 2005, for which he incurred medical expenses of Rs. 9,000/-. He claimed that his medical reimbursement bill was submitted in April 2005 to the Pay Unit, General Provident Fund Office, Zilla Parishad, Buldana, but remained pending for four months. Thereafter, he received two telephonic calls from the accused, Shri Sowale, a Senior Clerk in the said office, who allegedly requested a bribe to sanction the pending bill. PW-1 stated that when he met the accused on 18.08.2005, the accused initially demanded 10% of the bill amount, later reducing it to Rs. 700/- and ultimately to Rs. 500/-, which PW-1 refused 12 apeal 264.11.odt to pay. He then proceeded directly to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) office, lodged a complaint, and cooperated in a trap operation. PW-1 described the ACB trap procedure, including the application of anthracene powder to the currency note of Rs. 500/-, and placement of various personal items in his pockets. He deposed that he handed over the marked currency note to the accused near the entrance gate of the office following a signal agreed with the ACB officers. He claimed that the accused accepted the note and placed it in his pocket, after which the accused was apprehended by the ACB.
During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted certain discrepancies and uncertainties in his deposition. He acknowledged that the exact conversation during the second phone call was not recorded in the ACB complaint. He could not recall the precise handling of the marked currency note by the accused once taken from his hand, and he admitted that the assurance given by the accused to sanction the bill within 3-4 days was not mentioned immediately in the ACB statement. PW-1 also clarified that the initial bill submission was made by office staff and not personally by him, and that he had limited direct interaction with the accused prior to the trap. Additionally, he noted that no discussions regarding the bribe took place between his entry into the office and reaching the tea-stall with the accused.
13 apeal 264.11.odt
19. On a careful review of PW-1's testimony, the following legal flaws are evident which cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution case. PW-1 approached the ACB only after the alleged demand, without immediate documentation of the conversations, creating a possibility of retrospective exaggeration. The exact sequence and content of phone calls, bribe amount negotiations, and assurance to sanction the bill were inconsistently reported. PW-1 admitted he could not definitively state the location of the currency note once handed over to the accused and could not confirm if the marked note remained in the accused's possession continuously. The complainant did not submit the bill personally, raising questions as to how the accused could have directly influenced sanctioning, affecting the element of demand in the alleged bribery. The alleged demand occurred in an open office with multiple staff present, yet no independent corroboration of the conversation is available. In view of these discrepancies, contradictions, and procedural uncertainties in the deposition of PW-1, the evidence against the accused lacks the necessary clarity and reliability to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
20. PW-2, shadow witness, Junior Clerk in the "Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran," Buldana, deposed regarding the anti-corruption trap operation conducted on 18.08.2005. He stated that a letter from the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB) was received in their office directing certain officials to assist in the raid. The Executive Engineer instructed the 14 apeal 264.11.odt witness and Mr. Suresh Keshavrao Arakh to act as panchas during the operation. They proceeded to the ACB office at approximately 12:30 p.m., where the complainant Mr. Hedau, and ACB officials including Mr. Pachpande, Mr. Burkul, and Mr. Jadhav were present. The witness confirmed that Mr. Pachpande orally explained the contents of the complaint filed by Mr. Hedau, which pertained to an alleged demand of Rs. 500/- by the accused for clearance of a pending medical reimbursement bill. Panch witness and Mr. Arakh signed the complaint after perusal, acknowledging its contents as correct (Exh.12). PW-2 described the application of anthracene powder to a Rs. 500/- currency note provided by the complainant, and the placement of personal items in his pockets for marking and observation purposes. The witness accompanied the complainant to the Pay Unit Office to observe the alleged transaction and recorded that the complainant was instructed to signal acceptance of the currency note by raising his left sleeve. The witness stated that at the tea-stall outside the office, the accused allegedly accepted the currency note, after which a raiding party member apprehended him. The note was later recovered, verified for the marked number, and subjected to ultraviolet examination. The witness confirmed participation in the seizure of the currency note, the complainant's shirt, and the pant pocket of the accused, with all items documented in Panchnama No.1, No.2, and corresponding seizure memos (Exhs.15-19).
15 apeal 264.11.odt During cross-examination, the witness admitted several discrepancies and procedural uncertainties. The exact handling of the currency note after it was taken from the pocket of accused by Panch No.2 was unknown. The panchnama erroneously recorded certain details regarding the location of recovery of the currency note, including the statement that it was taken from the pocket of the accused in the office cabin rather than at the spot where his wrists were apprehended. He did not observe the entire conversation between the accused and the complainant, and oral instructions regarding the conduct of the raid were given only selectively. The sequence of events in the office, including when and where the currency note was removed from the possession of accused, was not consistently recorded. The witness could not confirm whether Mr. Jadhav, the senior ACB official, was present during certain stages of the panchnama preparations and seizures. There were admissions that prior to the meeting at tea-stall, no discussion regarding the alleged bribe had occurred, and the complainant's narrative of acceptance and signalling could not be independently corroborated.
21. On careful scrutiny, PW-2's testimony reveals significant procedural irregularities and gaps in direct observation. The inconsistencies regarding the handling of the currency note, location of recovery, and lack of continuous oversight of the transaction cast reasonable doubt on the accuracy of the complainant's allegations.
16 apeal 264.11.odt Furthermore, the witness confirmed that parts of the panchnamas and seizure memos were prepared under oral dictation, without his complete awareness of all procedural steps. In view of the foregoing, the evidence from the Panch witness does not conclusively establish the alleged demand or acceptance of the bribe by the accused, highlighting procedural lapses and inconsistencies that undermine the reliability of the prosecution's case.
22. PW3 - Investigating Officer (IO) stated that on 18.08.2005, he was attached to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Buldana, as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On that day, the complainant, Vijay Namdeorao Hedau, reported that he was a Physical Training Instructor and that a medical reimbursement bill for his daughter's appendix surgery was pending at the Pay Unit Office. The complainant alleged that a clerk from the office had demanded Rs.500/- as bribe to sanction the bill. PW3 recorded the complaint on a computer. The complaint (Exh.12) bore the complainant's signature and PW3's signature. PW3 requested the Executive Engineer, Jivan Pradhikaran, to provide two panchas for the anti-corruption raid. Two panch witnesses, Mr. Dhondge and Mr. Arakh, were provided. PW3 introduced the complainant to the panch witnesses and had them verify the complaint. Both panchas signed the complaint in his presence. PW3 described the procedure of preparing the tainted currency note using anthracene powder and ultraviolet light, and placing 17 apeal 264.11.odt the note in the complainant's possession for the trap. He instructed the complainant and the panch witnesses on their roles during the trap and took precautions to ensure that the identity of the raiding team was not disclosed. During the trap, PW3 and his staff observed the complainant while delivering the tainted note to the accused. Following a signal from the complainant, PW3's team approached the accused. He identified himself, and the accused cooperated. The tainted note was eventually recovered from the accused's pocket in the Chamber of Mr. Kale. The seizure memo (Exh.17) recorded this recovery, and PW3 confirmed the contents as correct. PW3 also confirmed the personal search of the accused, in which minor cash and sundry articles were returned. Panchnamas for seized articles, including the pants of the accused and documents, were prepared (Exh.18, Exh.19), signed by panch witnesses, and verified as correct.
In cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had not verified the phone numbers of the accused or the complainant. The complainant had not stated that the accused promised to expedite the bill upon payment of Rs.500/-. He had not investigated who altered figures on the medical reimbursement bill (Exh.13) or whether Mr. Kardel was involved. The exact timing of seizure in Exh.17 had discrepancies (initially 14.30 hrs, later 14.55 hrs). PW3 could not confirm who made this correction. PW3 could not state the presence of other persons during the seizure of 18 apeal 264.11.odt the tainted currency note. He could not confirm whether the complainant was called back into the chamber of Mr. Kale after the seizure or for what purpose. PW3 clarified that the panchnamas and procedures were conducted as per ACB protocol, but certain procedural and evidentiary aspects, including timing of events and verification of other potential witnesses, were not independently verified. PW3 denied that the proceedings were fabricated in collusion with the complainant and panchas and stated that he had personally participated in the trap.
23. A bare perusal of the evidence of the investigating officer would reveal that the IO did not verify telephone records or corroborate the complainant's claim of the bribe demand prior to the trap. The exact timing of the tainted note seizure is uncertain due to discrepancies in the seizure memo. IO admitted he did not investigate alterations on the medical reimbursement bill or the involvement of other office staff. The IO could not confirm presence of independent witnesses during seizure or trap, nor the complainant's movements after initial seizure.
24. PW4 the sanctioning authority, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Amravati, received a letter from the Superintendent of Police, ACB Amravati, on 29.11.2005 seeking sanction to prosecute the accused, Mr. Shrikant Sowale. In cross-examination, the sanctioning authority admitted that between 29.11.2005 and 7.12.2005, he studied the 19 apeal 264.11.odt documents but had not reached any conclusive decision on whether to grant or refuse sanction. He, however, denied that this delay was due to non-application of mind.
A major discrepancy arises from the sequence of events. The sanction order (Exh. 32) bears the signature of the sanctioning authority dated 2.12.2005, prior to seeking additional information from the subordinate officer on 5.12.2005. This is highly irregular and undermines the credibility of the sanction, as a competent authority is expected to complete all due verification before issuing the order. The sanctioning authority admitted that the draft sanction prepared by the subordinate office was largely relied upon and incorporated word-for-word into the final sanction order. There is no evidence that independent assessment, critical evaluation, or personal satisfaction regarding the allegations was undertaken before signing the sanction order. While discussing the duties of employees in the Pay Unit Office, Buldana, the sanctioning authority admitted that he did not verify whether the accused was specifically entrusted with the work of medical reimbursement bills, before granting sanction. He also could not recall whether another employee, Shri Kardel, may have been involved, yet this fact was not investigated. The conduct of signing the sanction order before obtaining clarifications or remarks from the subordinate office, and then forwarding a separate letter to seek additional information, is indicative of procedural lapse and non-
20 apeal 264.11.odt application of mind. It reflects a mechanical endorsement of the draft without independent scrutiny.
25. Overall, the sanctioning authority's testimony reveals several loopholes: Lack of prior verification of employee's responsibilities, Relying solely on the draft opinion of subordinates without independent evaluation, Signing the sanction order before obtaining necessary information, which is contrary to the principles of reasoned and informed decision-making expected of a competent sanctioning authority and failure to reconcile discrepancies in the documentation (e.g., non-mention of other employees potentially responsible). These factors indicate that the sanction order was issued mechanically and without proper application of mind, raising serious questions regarding the propriety and validity of the sanction itself.
26. On a close and careful reading of the record, it is manifestly clear that the sanction granted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Amravati, suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order of sanction (Exhibit 32) bears his signature dated 2nd December, 2005, yet the very same authority wrote, only a few days later, on 5th December, 2005, seeking further information from the subordinate office and received a reply on 7th December, 2005. Such chronology demonstrates that the sanction was issued prematurely and without full knowledge of 21 apeal 264.11.odt all relevant facts, thereby betraying a lack of independent deliberation. A sanctioning authority must apply its own mind, not merely endorse a draft prepared by investigators. As held in State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273; a valid sanction requires that the authority be "aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind" to the material placed before it. In Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2005 (Mohd. Abdul Naim s/o Mohd. Abdul Halim v. Tyaba Begum w/o Mohd Abdul Naim and others, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held in paragraphs 10 to 13 as under-
"10. The main thrust here is on validity of sanction. Focus of learned counsel for appellant is on invalid sanction, which according to him is sine qua non and when there is no proper sanction or improper sanction, it is his submissions that, trial gets vitiated. According to him, sanctioning authority has admitted receiving draft and using the same while according sanction. Therefore, it is his submission that on the sole count of want of proper sanction, guilt ought not to have been recorded.
In the light of above submissions and to ascertain whether it is so, it is desirable to reproduce the evidence of PW6 Kumar Shinde, D.S.P., CID, who is a sanctioning authority in that regard :-
"I received draft sanction order alongwith the letter of S.P. ACB Nanded. Today I have brought the draft sanction order. It is not true to say that the recitals in the sanction order Exh.55 and the draft sanction order are same in verbatim. I had added my name and date in the draft sanction order. It is true that I got typed the draft sanction order adding my name and date and thereafter, I put my signature thereon. It is not true to say that I have not mentioned the documents which promoted me to accord sanction, in the sanction order Exh.55."
11. On carefully analyzing the above evidence of sanctioning authority, apparently, which all documents were placed has not 22 apeal 264.11.odt been specifically deposed by him. Secondly, PW6 D.S.P. Kumar Shinde categorically seems to have admitted that he had received and used draft sanction order. His such answer inflicts severe blow, thereby completely eliminating the aspect of independent application of mind.
The referred ruling in the case of Bhagwan Mahadeo Sathe (Supra) and Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (Supra), it is very categorically held that, when draft has been used by sanctioning authority, serious doubt crops up about independent assessment of material and application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
Here also, there is candid admission by sanctioning authority regarding using draft sanction order.
12. Since way back in 1979 itself, in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P., (1979) 4 SCC 172, law has been fairly settled that, it is incumbent upon prosecution to prove valid sanction. Without proper sanction, entire proceedings are renderedvoid ab initio.
13. Apart from above rulings, very recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. v. Mahesh G. Jain, 2014 ALL SCR 177 as well as in case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), has succinctly and distinctly elaborated the essentials of valid sanction as well as settled principles regarding of sanction are enunciated. It would be fruitful to quote the relevant paragraphs in above both judgments which are as under :-
State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain (Supra) "(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
(b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
(d) Grant of sanction is only on administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach 23 apeal 264.11.odt the satisfactionthat relevant facts would constitute the offence.
(e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
(g) The order of sanction is pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants,but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be hyper technical approach to test its validity. CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), "(i) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction;
(ii) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction;
(iii) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought;
(iv) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material;
(v) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
24 apeal 264.11.odt
27. Further, in the present case, the sanctioning authority has openly admitted that he adopted the subordinate office's draft nearly verbatim, without verifying whether the accused, Shri Shrikant Sowale, was actually tasked with the responsibility relating to the medical reimbursement work. He failed to ascertain whether other employees such as Shri Kardel were involved, underscores a deficiency in factual inquiry and demonstrates that the decision was more mechanical than reasoned.
28. Moreover, the very act of seeking clarifications only after the sanction was already signed is contrary to the standards of conscious and independent decision-making required of a competent authority. As per settled jurisprudence, sanctioning is not a mere formality; it must reflect real application of mind. Time and again such sanctions are quashed because the authority merely approved a draft without any direct evaluation, holding that such mechanical action vitiates the sanction.
29. The prosecution has further failed to prove the essential elements of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. There is no credible, muchless cogent evidence on record showing that the accused ever asked for or received any gratification. The mere performance of routine official duty, such as processing a reimbursement file, cannot be equated to an admission of guilt. The absence of independent 25 apeal 264.11.odt corroboration especially when the complainant's narrative is uncorroborated by reliable witnesses undermines the very foundation of the prosecution's case. It is a well-settled principle in jurisprudence as far as matters of corruption concerned that demand is the sine qua non of acceptance; without proof of demand, acceptance cannot be presumed. Evaluation of authorities cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant clearly benefits the present case.
30. The learned Addl.P.P. has placed reliance upon the decision in Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra (supra), and paragraph 14 thereof is extracted as under:
"14. If a draft order is placed before the sanctioning authority and he is satisfied that nothing needs to be added/deleted therefrom, the grant of sanction cannot be faulted merely on the ground of absence of addition of words to/deletion of words from the draft. We have noticed that PW-3 made four minor corrections to ensure that the substance conforms to the form in which the sanction was required to be given, without altering the substance (i.e. the contents). That there has been a complete absence of application of mind by PW-3 is, thus, not proved; also, that there has been a failure of justice has not been shown. In fact, we are satisfied that there has been no irregularity, far less illegality, in the grant of sanction. We are, thus, not even required to invoke provisions of Section 465, Cr. PC."
From the above exposition, the legal position that emerges is that the sanctioning authority is required to apply its independent mind while according sanction, and such application of mind may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, including the manner in which the 26 apeal 264.11.odt sanctioning authority deals with the draft sanction and the underlying material such as the FIR, the complaint, and relevant documents. Even where a draft sanction is utilised, the conduct of the authority must indicate that it has exercised its discretion judiciously. In the case relied upon, the sanctioning authority had made modifications to the draft, thereby demonstrating due consideration.
31. In the present matter, however, the factual matrix stands on an entirely different footing. The deposition of the sanctioning authority unmistakably reveals that he was unaware of the involvement of one of the appellants, thus indicating a clear absence of due application of mind. The sanction was accorded mechanically, without proper scrutiny of the material placed before the authority. Consequently, the ratio of Dashrath cannot assist the prosecution, as the crucial requirement of independent satisfaction is wholly absent in the present case. The issue is not the mere use of a draft, but the lack of an informed, conscious decision-making process while granting sanction.
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the sanction order in the present case is vitiated for want of proper application of mind, having been granted on incomplete information and by mechanically adopting a draft without independent evaluation. This 27 apeal 264.11.odt defect strikes at the very root of the prosecution, the statutory requirement of a valid sanction being a condition precedent for taking cognizance and proceeding to trial. When this infirmity is viewed together with the prosecution's failure to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the foundational elements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the cumulative deficiencies prove fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution having failed to discharge its burden, and the sanction itself being legally unsustainable, the conviction cannot be upheld. I am, therefore, inclined to pass the following order:
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Buldana in Special (Anti-Corruption) Case No. 01/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The appellant is acquitted of the charges of offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
iv) His personal bond and surety bond are discharged.
v) The fine amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded.
[NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.] MPDeshpande Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/11/2025 17:15:31