High Court of Bombay

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Anil Kacharu Shinde

MANU/MH/3982/2023

03.10.2023

Criminal

In case of trivial matter, Court can refuse to draw the presumption of corruption

Present appeal is filed by the Appellant/original complainant against the judgment delivered by the Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), acquitting the Respondent-original accused from charges under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P. C. Act").

Section 19(1)(b) of the P. C. Act provides that, in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, the sanction for prosecution should be granted by the State Government. Section 19(1)(c) provides that, in the case of any other person, the sanctioning authority would be the authority competent to remove the accused from his office.

In the instant case, PW4-Under Secretary has admitted that the appointing authority of the Respondent/accused is the Principal Secretary. If that be so, then under Section 19, the power to remove the respondent/accused would be with the Principal Secretary and, therefore, it is the Principal Secretary, who was supposed to sanction the prosecution under Section 19 and not the Under Secretary. Therefore, the prosecution should not have been initiated under the P. C. Act without obtaining the sanction of the appropriate authority. Therefore, the sanction having not been obtained by the competent authority, the impugned judgment acquitting respondent/ accused does not call for any interference.

There are lot of inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, the order of acquittal does not require any interference by this Court. Section 20(3) of the P. C. Act gives a clue that in case of trivial matter, the court may refuse to draw the presumption of corruption. The view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, in the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge would not require interference and the present appeal is to be dismissed.

Tags : Inconsistencies Evidence Acquittal

Share :