2010 (8) TMI 1049

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the "1947 Act". 3. According to the prosecution case, the complainant, Ramavtar, submitted an application in the Office of the District Excise Officer, Shahdol, for a licence to collect Mahua. At that time, Ghanshyamdas @ G.D. Sharma had been serving as Special Inspector, Excise and the sole Respondent herein, Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi, was serving as a Clerk in the said establishment. The complainant, Ramavtar, claimed to have deposited a sum of ₹ 200/- for the licence fee in the State Bank and upon inquiry from the said Ghanshyamdas, he allegedly demanded a sum of ₹ 2000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification for getting the licence. Eventually, a written complaint was made by Ramavtar to the Lokay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1947. The trial Judge acquitted the Respondents not on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, but upon holding that the sanction which had been accorded for the prosecution of the accused, was improper and had been given without application of mind. Though, the learned Special Judge found the trap to have been proved, he acquitted the Respondents on the ground that the sanction to prosecute the accused had been granted without application of mind. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the prosecuting agencies filed Criminal Appeal No.294 of 1994 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, by its judgment and order dated 31st March, 2008, reiterated the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pear from the records maintained by the Office of the Lokayukt, had been clearly set out and a satisfaction was also arrived at from the facts as recorded and from the perusal thereof, that prosecution was required to be initiated against both the accused in a Court of law. Ms. Makhija submitted that the trial Court had wrongly held that no valid sanction for prosecution had been proved, inasmuch as, the same was proved by Shri R.N. Singh, the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt Office (PW-5). Ms. Makhija submitted that the learned Courts below had erred in acquitting the Respondents only on the said ground after having found them to be guilty of the offence with which they had been charged. 9. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted that having regard to the above, the sanction order was sufficiently clear to indicate that the Sanctioning Authority had applied its mind to the records of the office of the Lokayukt while granting sanction for prosecuting the two accused persons. 11. In view of the death of the Respondent No.1, Ghanshyamdas, during the pendency of the appeal, Ms. Makhija's submissions were opposed on behalf of the remaining Respondent, Harishankar Bhagwan Prasad Tripathi, and the submissions made before the trial Court as well as the High Court, were reiterated by Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Advocate. In addition, it was once again emphasized that the sole Respondent had not made any demand for illegal gratification, nor was any evidence led....