Subordinate to the appointing authority can not grant sanction to prosecute

Additional Collector holding charge of District Collector can not give sanction to prosecute in corruption case when employee is appointed by District Collector

    The sanction for prosecution can be granted by the authority competent to remove person. The appointment authority was Collector. PW-4 was subordinate to Collector. He was working as Additional Collector. The prosecution is relying upon the order handing over the charge to PW-4. The documents were produced on re-examination of the witness. The question which arises for consideration is that assuming that the charge was handed over to PW-4, on account of leave of District Collector, whether the charge of according sanction to prosecute the accused stands transferred to him. There is no satisfactory evidence on record to substantiate this fact. The approach of PW-4 appears to be casual. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to some provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services Rules to bring home and contended that District Collector was appointing and removing authority.[Para No.21]

    It is submitted that, disciplinary authority cannot be inferior to the appointing authority. In the present case the collector being the appointing authority of the applicant, the additional collector did not have the power to remove him from service. Article 311 (1) of the constitution of India creates a safeguard where in no person who is a member of the Civil services of the Union or the state or an All Indian Service or a civil service or who holds a civil post under the union or State shall be removed by an authority sub ordinate to him. In the present case PW-3 at the relevant time was functioning as the Additional collector of Kolhapur. PW-3 in his examination in Chief makes a positive assertion that the Collector of the District is the Appointing and the removing Authority of the Appellant/accused. The Appointment order of the Appellant was produced on record by the said witness and the same is at (Exh.119). The PW 3 admits in his cross examination that the Post of the Additional Collector and Collector are different. The onus of proving a valid sanction is on the prosecution and hence it was incumbent upon the prosecution to bring on record any documents which would demonstrate that the power of Appointment and the removal of the Appellant vested with the Additional Collector. The prosecution has not produced any documents in this regard. The aforesaid witness was re-examined by the prosecution and the documents at Exh.124 is a charge report dated 11th April, 2006. It can be seen that the Collector holding regular charge was proceedings on leave and hence the Additional Charge of the District was being handed over to the PW-3. In the aforesaid charge report it is no where mentioned that the PW-3 had the authority to remove the Appellant or persons of equivalent rank from service and hence (Exh.124) would not come to the aid and assistance of the prosecution.

In fact Article 311 (1) does not permit such a delegation of powers and hence assuming without admitting that there was such a delegation, then the same would nonest in the eyes of law and the same would be in conflict with the constitutional safeguard created under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India.[Para No.22]

Under the grab of Public Interest Litigation a Third party can not file application u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.

This Court in the above case laid down that it is for the parties in the criminal case to raise all the questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of Public Interest Litigants.[Para No.14]

    We are fully satisfied that respondent No.2 has no locus in the present case to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking the Court to expedite the hearing in criminal trial. We have already observed that all criminal trials where offences involved under the Prevention of Corruption Act have to be concluded at an early date and normally no exception can be taken to the order of the High Court directing the trial court to expedite the criminal trial but in the present case the fact is that proceedings have been initiated

by respondent No.2 who was not concerned with the proceedings in any manner and the respondent No.2 has no locus to file the application which was not clearly maintainable, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 09.09.2020 cannot be sustained.[Para No.15]

The proof of demand is an indispensable essentiality to prove the offence under The Prevention of Corruption Act

In the light of the serious discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. The demand of bribe is not established by clinching evidence. Acceptance of bribe suffers from serious doubt. In Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, it was held that Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot aford to rests its case in the realm "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "may be", in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjuncture. Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice are avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are possible then, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Applying the legal principle as above, the material on record, leave note manner of doubt that the prosecution in the present case, has failed to prove unequivocally the demand of illegal gratification and even its acceptance. In the case of P.Satyanarayna Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. It was held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is gravamen of offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C. Act and in the absence thereof mistakenly the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would not be sufficient to prove home the charge under these sections of the Act.

As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. In the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh. It was held that the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act can be drawn on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any oficial act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. In catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that mere possession of recovery of currency note from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the P.C. Act. It has been propounded that in absence of proof of demand of any illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand has been held to be an indispensable essentiality to prove the offence. In the present case, the demand as well as acceptance is under shadow of doubt and has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 31 Considering the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that the evidence adduced against the accused by prosecution suffers from doubt. In the circumstances, the evidence relating to demand and acceptance cannot be believed. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted.[Para No.30]