Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2001. Case: Maruti Subrao Shinde Vs The State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1 of 2001
CounselFor Appellants: B.R. Patil, Manoj Kadam and For Respondent: M.R. Tidake
JudgesV Kanade, J.
IssuePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2); Revenue and Forest Department (Recruitment Rules), 1984 - Rule 2(A)
Judgement DateDecember 07, 2010
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

V Kanade, J., (At Bombay)

  1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned APP for the State.

  2. The Appellant has filed this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Gadhinglaj in Special Case No.3 of 1999. By the said judgment and order dated 21.12.2000, the Special Judge was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and was sentenced him to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further S.I. for three months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for six months.

  3. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused was working as a Talathi. It is alleged that he received Rs.100 as bribe from the Complainant while he was handing over a copy of the 7-12 extract and in return for handing over the copy of the said 7-12 extract, he received Rs.100/- as bribe and he was caught red- handed. FIR was lodged at the Police Station, Gadhinglaj. The Appellant-Accused was arrested. A proposal for sanction to prosecute the accused was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) who was pleased to grant sanction and, thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the Appellant. Charge was framed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined six witnesses. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence convicted the accused.

  4. Shri B.R. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the entire trial was vitiated since sanction to prosecute was not granted by the competent authority. He submitted that the Appellant was appointed by the Assistant Collector. However, sanction to prosecute was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was sub- ordinate to the Assistant Collector and, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the sanction to prosecute was invalid. In support of the said submission, he relied on two judgments of this Court; (1) in the case of Bhaurao Marotrao Manekar vs. State of Maharashtra [1980 Mh.L.J. Page 445]; and (2) the judgment of the another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sakharam Trymbak Patil vs. State of Maharashtra [1993 Mh.L.J. Page 276].

  5. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT