Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Anil Kacharu Shinde - (High Court of Bombay) (03 Oct 2023)

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

MANU/MH/3982/2023

Criminal

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved