Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tarachand s/o Dharmu Rathod, a Police Head Constable, was convicted by the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Aurangabad, in Special Case (ACB) No.39 of 2015 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine for each offence, with sentences to run concurrently. The case arose from a complaint by Mrs. Urmila Bokan alleging that the appellant demanded Rs.10,000 as bribe to not initiate a chapter case against her and her family. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting Rs.5,000. The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that the sanction to prosecute him was invalid as it was not granted by the competent authority. The High Court examined the sanction order, the appellant's appointment order, and information obtained under the RTI Act. It found that the appellant was appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, but the sanction was granted by the Superintendent of Police, who was not the appointing and removing authority. The court held that under Section 19 of the PC Act, sanction must be by the authority competent to remove the public servant. Since the sanction was invalid, the entire trial stood vitiated. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The connected criminal application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 19 - Competent Authority - The sanction order must be issued by the authority competent to appoint and remove the public servant. In this case, the appellant was a Police Head Constable appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, but the sanction was granted by the Superintendent of Police, who was not the appointing authority. Held that the sanction was invalid, and the conviction based on such sanction cannot be sustained. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Conviction and Sentence - Section 235(2) - Validity of Sanction - The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under the PC Act. However, the High Court found that the sanction was not valid, and therefore the conviction was set aside. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sanction to prosecute the appellant was valid and granted by the competent authority as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Connected criminal application disposed of.
Law Points
- Sanction for prosecution must be granted by the appointing and removing authority
- Invalid sanction vitiates the trial
- Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
