http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MRUTUNJAYA PANDA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/01/1998

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURKUKAR, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present:                Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.K.Mukherjee                Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Kurdukar                Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T.Thomas Mr. Manish  Mishra and  Mr. P.N.  Mishra, Advocates  for the appellant. Mr. N.P.Midha  and Mr.  Bharat  Sangal,  Advocates  for  the respondent.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: M.K.MUKHERJEE, J.      The respondent  was tried  for  and  convicted  of  the offences under  Section 161  of the  Indian Penal  Code an d 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947  by   the  Special  Judge  (Vigilance),  Sambalpur  for accepting a  sum of  Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from Mohd. Ushaman  (P.W.2), an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant. In  appeal   preferred  by  him  the  High  Court  that  the respondent received  the above  sum as illegal gratification and that  the defence  of the  respondent received the above sum as  illegal gratification  and that  t he defence of the respondent that  the above  amount was paid by P.W.2 as loan was unbelievable.  Inspite thereof  the High Court set aside the convictions  of the respondent solely on the ground that there was  no valid  sanction to  prosecute him.  The  above judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 2.   On perusal  of the  impugned judgment  we find that the High Court’s  attention was  not drawn  to the provisions of Section  465   of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  which expressly  lays   down,  inter   alia,  that  any  error  of irregularity in  any sanction  for the prosecution shall not be a  ground for  reversing an  order of  conviction by  the appellate Court  unless in  the  opinion  of  that  Court  a failure of  justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The section further  lays down  that in  determining whether any error or  irregularity in  any sanction  for the prosecution has occasioned  a failure  of justice,  the Court shall have regard to  the fact  whether the  objection could and should have been  raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings. In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

view of  the above provisions the High Court was required to decide, after  recording a finding that there was some error or irregularity  occasioned a failure of justice and further whether  such   objection  regarding  the  validity  of  the sanction was  raised in  the trial  Court.  Admittedly,  the above point was not raised in the trial Court nor do we find anything on  record from which it can be said that the error or irregularity  in the sanction (even if we assume that the finding of  the High  Court in  this regard  is correct) did occasion any  failure of justice. In that view of the matter it must be said that the High Court was not at all justified in acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was no valid  sanction  to  prosecute  him.  Since  on  facts,  the concurrent findings  of the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by cogent reasons the judgment of the High Court has got to be reversed. 3.   Resultantly,  we  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the impugned judgment  and restore  the conviction  and sentence recorded against  t he  respondent by  the trial  Court. The trial Court  will now  take appropriate steps to incarcerate the respondent to serve out the sentence imposed by it.