Appeal Dismissed: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal, Finds High Court's Order of Sanction Valid and Prosecution Unconvincing.

The SC dismissed the appeal, affirming the HC's judgment acquitting the Respondent. The SC held that the HC correctly found the order of sanction valid and the prosecution's case unconvincing. The evidence did not conclusively prove the Respondent's guilt, and the possibility of two views justified the HC's decision to acquit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of sanction.
2. Merits of the prosecution case against the Respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order of Sanction:

The High Court reversed the Special Judge's conviction of the Respondent on the grounds that the order of sanction dated 1.5.1995 was not proved in accordance with law. The Supreme Court scrutinized this finding and noted that the order of sanction, a Government Order No. GOMs. No.76 dated 02.03.1995, was issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and authenticated by Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, Secretary to the Government. The order was considered a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 identified the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, and the document was admitted without objection at the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in invoking Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the authenticity of the document was never in question. The Court emphasized that a public document can be proved in terms of Sections 76 to 78 of the Evidence Act and that the High Court misread the law laid down in Gulzar Ali vs. State of H.P. [(1998) 2 SCC 192].

2. Merits of the Prosecution Case:

The prosecution alleged that the Respondent demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000, later reduced to Rs. 600, for issuing a property valuation certificate. A trap was laid, and Rs. 600 was recovered from the Respondent. However, the Respondent claimed that the certificate was already issued, and the complainant (PW-1) falsely implicated him due to a grudge. The High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case:

- PW-1's application was processed unusually quickly, with local verification and document collection completed within a day.
- The demand for the bribe was allegedly made on 02.03.1994, but PW-1 did not complain until 05.03.1994.
- The valuation certificate was sent to PW-3 by the Respondent on 04.03.1994, despite the alleged bribe demand.
- PW-1 had direct access to PW-3, who could have intervened if there were any delays or hindrances.
- The Respondent was merely a recommending authority, not the final issuing authority for the certificate.
- The trap yielded not only the tainted amount but also Rs. 235 in different denominations, which was not subjected to a phenolphthalein test.

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's assessment that the prosecution case was not free from doubt. The Court observed that PW-1 appeared to be an influential person who managed to expedite the process unusually fast. The Court also noted the improbability of the Respondent forwarding the certificate if his bribe demand was unmet. Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that two views were possible and upheld the High Court's judgment acquitting the Respondent.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, sustaining the High Court's judgment on both the validity of the order of sanction and the merits of the prosecution case. The Court found that the materials on record did not conclusively establish the guilt of the Respondent, thereby affirming the High Court's decision to acquit.

---