Valid prosecution sanction and unexplained tainted currency recovery can justify setting aside an acquittal.

A prosecution sanction is valid where the record shows conscious consideration of the relevant material and the competent authority records satisfaction for prosecution; an express recital of personal scrutiny is not required. On the facts noted, the trap was proved and tainted currency was recovered from the respondent, and the absence of a credible explanation for possession of the treated money could not be ignored. The courts below erred in treating the matter as unproved merely on a supposed defect in sanction. The judgments below were set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sanction for prosecution was invalid for want of application of mind. (ii) Whether the acquittal could be sustained despite proof of the trap and recovery of tainted currency from the respondent.

Issue (i): Whether the sanction for prosecution was invalid for want of application of mind.

Analysis: The sanction order was supported by the record from the Lokayukt office and showed that the competent authority had examined the material and recorded satisfaction for prosecution. A sanction order is not invalid merely because it does not expressly state that the officer personally scrutinized the file, so long as the order and surrounding evidence establish due consideration of the relevant facts.

Conclusion: The sanction was valid and the finding of invalid sanction was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal could be sustained despite proof of the trap and recovery of tainted currency from the respondent.

Analysis: The trap was found to have been proved and a part of the tainted money was recovered from the respondent. In the absence of any credible explanation for possession of the treated currency, the recovery could not be ignored, and the courts below erred in treating the case as unproved merely on the ground of sanction.

Conclusion: The acquittal could not be sustained on the facts as found.

Final Conclusion: The judgments of the courts below were set aside and the matter was sent back for decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for prosecution is valid when the record shows conscious consideration of the relevant material and it is not necessary that the sanctioning authority expressly recite personal scrutiny of the file; proof of trap and unexplained possession of tainted currency may justify reversal of an acquittal based on an erroneous view of sanction.

---