Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16 It is argued by Ld Defence counsel that in this case sanctioning authority has granted the sanction in mechanical manner without applying her mind . Sanctioning authority had received a draft sanction order and had signed the same without going through it which is clear from the fact that wrong date and vehicle No. has been mentioned in the sanction order as appeared in the draft of sanction order.

17 It is argued that prosecution has utterly failed to prove that accused had made alleged demand of bribe and the acceptance of the same from the complainant or Nawab Khan. Prosecution has also failed to prove recovery of tainted money from the possession of accused. PW1 Sh K S Chabbra has only countersigned the report hence no reliance can be placed on it.

PUBLIC SERVANT AND SANCTION 23 It is undisputed that accused was working as Head Clerk in the office of STA Underhill Road Delhi at the relevant time i e during the month of March 2001. This fact has also been proved by PW 3 Ms Sindhu Shri Khuller . Even otherwise it has not been disputed on behalf of accused that he was not a public servant.

24 PW3 Ms Sindhu Shri Khullar has stated that on 21.8.2001 she was posted as Secretary- cum -Commissioner Transport Department, Underhill Road Delhi. She was competent to remove K C Singh from his post as a Head Clerk. She had granted sanction for the prosecution of accused KC Singh under her signatures which is Ex PW3/A after going through the record i e complaint, FIR, statement of witnesses placed before her . In her cross examination she has admitted that a draft proforma of sanction order was also received from CBI . However, she has further sated that she had called record and documents relating to the accused from her office. She has denied the suggestion that she had granted sanction without application of her mind and sanction order Ex PW 3/A is verbatim of draft proforma.

25 Ld Defence counsel argued that vehicle No. and date has been wrongly mentioned in the sanction order, similar to that mentioned in the draft perform which proves that sanctioning authority has not applied her mind and merely signed the draft sanction order on dotted lines. It is surprising that Ld Defence counsel has not confronted Sanctioning Authority Ms Sindhu Shri with the alleged wrongly mentioned dates when she appeared in the witness box. Infact, all the dates have been correctly mentioned in the sanction order.

28 It is correct that sanctioning authority had received a draft proforma of the sanction order, however, sanctioning authority has categorically stated that she had gone through the documents and applied her mind before granting the sanction. She has also denied the suggestion that she had granted sanction without application of mind.

29 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Damodaran, 1993 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 272 has held as follows:

"Prevention of Corruption Act, 147 - Ss. 5 (1) (e) and 5 (2) read with S. 161, IPC - Non application of mind and grant of sanction mechanically by sanctioning authority - Basis of acquittal by High Court - High Court deeply influenced in its decision by the fact that a model sanction order was enclosed with the record sent to the sanctioning authority - Held, acquittal not justified - There was no infirmity in the order granting sanction - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 197".