Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

As this is a trap case wherein it is alleged that the respondent had taken a bribe of Rs. 2,500 for giving favourable treatment to the complainant, only circumstance No. 6, if at all, could be pressed by learned senior counsel for the respondent in support of the order of the High Court. That is to the effect that there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act for prosecuting the case. In the present case, therefore, validity of the sanction would assume importance. If that sanction is found to be invalid then the proceedings could be validly quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC. So far as this aspect is concerned our attention was invited by learned senior counsel for the appellant to the sanction order dated 27th July 1989 which was annexed to the special Leave Petition at page 22. A reading of the relevant recitals in the sanction order shows that the sanctioning authority had looked into the statements of witnesses from Police Case Diary and other relevant documents and it was observed that the complainant was to be given an order of Rs. 9,520 by the accused Dr. Saksena to supply medicine on which account the accused had asked for commission/gratification of Rs. 2,500 at the rate of 25 per cent. The said medicine was to be supplied by M/s. Kankur Laboratories, Ahmedabad. Because the complainant did not want to give gratification, he made a written complaint against him on 1st January 1987 to the Vigilance Branch of Lok Aayukt. But since it was late on that day, is., 1st January 1987 the necessary action was taken on 2nd January 1987. The complainant had produced 25 notes of Rs. 100 and their numbers were taken on the Preliminary Panchnama and Phenoltheine Powder as put on these notes. After necessary instructions were given to the complainant Sunil Kumar Jain, the trapping group moved towards the destination. After reaching Dr, K.C. Saksena's clinic situated at Adarsh Colony, the complainant and a witness Giriraj Sharma went inside the clinic and other members were biding nearby. After sometime Dr. Saksena came to his clinic. The complainant gave the said notes of Rs. 2,500 to accused Dr. Saksena when he asked for the same. The accused kept those notes in the back pocket of his pants. And after taking that money accused Dr. Saksena granted supply order to complainant Sunil Kumar Jain. Then the com-plainant came outside and gave a pre- planned signal, i.e., putting his hand on head. On that members of trapping group reached there immediately and introduced themselves and caught hold of wrists of accused Dr, Saksena's both hands. After that when both the hands of accused Dr. Saksena were put into the solution of Sodium Carbonate the colour of solution became rosy. The witness Sakharam, Deputy Collector searched accused Dr. Saksena and recovered 25 notes of Rs. 100 from back pocket of his full pants. And when the numbers of said notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the Preliminary Panchnama they were found to be bearing the same numbers and thereafter these notes were seized. The sanctioning authority has also noted in the sanction order that the evidence comprising of complainant Sunil Kumar Jain and witnesses Giriraj Sharma, Sakharam, Ran Singh Kushwaha, Tulsi Ram, K.C. Patoria, Vijeadra Singh, R.S. Sharma and Lala Ram clearly indicated about these facts. Apart from these statements which were kept in view by the sanctioning authority the Chemical Examination Report was also seen by the sanctioning authority and it was found to support the case of the prosecution, In OUT view it could not prima facie be said that the sanction order was patently illegal. We must further hasten to add that if ultimately at the stage of trial it is found that the sanction was liable to fail on any relevant ground well made out by the defence then the respondent may be entitled to acquittal. But at the stage of quashing of criminal proceedings where even challan had not been filed the aforesaid order of sanction could not have been treated by the High Court as ex facie illegal or invalid. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in treating the sanction invalid were twofold. Firstly the sanction, according to the learned Judge was bad on the ground that the accused was not heard. This ground is rightly not pressed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent as it is now well settled that at the stage of granting of sanction the accused need not be heard (State of Maharashtra v, Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri & Ors., (1995) 6 SCALE 674 and Superintendent of Police (CB.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary & Ors, AIR (1996) SC 186, The second ground given by the High Court was to the effect that the affidavits filed by the staff members of the clinic of the respondent were not considered by the sanctioning authority. It is true that the learned Single Judge had observed in paragraph (21) of his judgment that 'admittedly' in this case, representation of the petitioner, documents relied by him which have been lost, and the affidavits of the witnesses present on the spot who were large in number were not placed before the sanctioning authority and, therefore, the sanction granted is definitely bad in law. However it must be kept in view that without looking at the relevant documents comprised in the file which were lost during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court it would be too premature to say whether the lost documents were seen by the sanctioning authority or not before granting sanction. Even otherwise if it is found on evidence which may be led at the stage of trial that the affidavits of the staff were self-serving statements obtained by the respondent to support his case and were of such a nature that they could not adversely affect the trap evidence, then it could not be urged by the prosecution that non- consideration of such irrelevant and self-serving evidence would have affected the efficacy of the sanction. In Short all these aspects could have been better examined at the stage of trial for invalidating the sanction. It is too premature at the present stage to hold that all necessary and relevant evidence must not have been considered by the sanctioning authority. It appears that the word 'admittedly' as found in paragraph (21) of the .order passed by the learned Single Judge appears to have been mentioned loosely and in an inadvertent manner. Learned senior counsel for the appellant fairly stated that the sanction order does not on the face of it indicate that the affidavits of staff members were considered by the sanctioning authority. But the recitals in the last but one paragraph of the sanction order show that the sanctioning authority was satisfied after complete and conscious scrutiny of the records produced in respect of the allegation against the accused. Now the question whether all the relevant evidence which would have tilted the balance in favour of the accused if it was considered by the sanctioning authority before granting sanction and which was actually left out of consideration could be examined only at the stage of trial when the sanctioning authority comes forward as a prosecution witness to support the sanction order if challenged during the trial. As that stage was not reached the prosecution could not have been quashed at the very inception on the supposition that all relevant documents were not considered by the sanctioning authority while granting the impugned sanction. We, therefore, hold that the twin reasons given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the sanction was invalid are unsustainable and unjustified.