Prevention of Corruption Act : Sanction must be by the authority competent to remove the accused from service

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Invalid Sanction. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Says Court

In a significant judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench, Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar has acquitted Dr. Jagannath Rangnath Kakade and Ashok Seetaram Ambhore, who were previously convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeals filed by the accused challenged their conviction by the Special Judge, Aurangabad, which was based on charges of demanding and accepting bribes for official acts. The High Court quashed the conviction, citing invalid sanction for prosecution and lack of proof regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Pandit Alanjkar, a police constable who had submitted medical bills amounting to Rs. 93,000 for reimbursement. He alleged that Dr. Kakade, the Civil Surgeon, and Ambhore, a clerk, demanded 10% of the bill amount as a bribe to process the reimbursement. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, leading to Ambhore's arrest while allegedly accepting the bribe.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court found discrepancies and omissions in the prosecution's case. It was noted that the sanction accorded to prosecute Dr. Kakade was granted by an underqualified authority, rendering it invalid. Similarly, the sanction for Ambhore was deemed to lack application of mind, as the sanctioning authority had not reviewed the relevant appointment orders.

Moreover, the court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the demand for bribes beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of key witnesses, including the complainant and investigating officers, revealed inconsistencies and lack of corroboration regarding the alleged demands by the accused.

The judgment emphasized the necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The mere recovery of tainted money was deemed insufficient for conviction without concrete evidence of prior demand.

Justice Ghodeswar underscored the importance of valid sanction from competent authorities to protect public servants from frivolous prosecutions. The court reiterated that sanctions must be issued by authorities capable of removing the accused from service, a requirement not met in this case.

Consequently, the High Court acquitted Dr. Kakade and Ambhore of all charges, canceled their bail bonds, and ordered the refund of fines paid. The judgment serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards required for corruption prosecutions and the protection of procedural integrity.

Bottom Line:

Valid sanction is mandatory for prosecution - Sanction must be accorded by the authority competent to remove the accused from service - Invalid sanction vitiates the entire prosecution - Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), 19(1)(c)

Dr. Jagannath v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Aurangabad Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2796167