REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1513   OF 2010 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.8612 of 2008)

STATE OF M.P.                     … APPELLANT VS.

HARISHANKAR BHAGWAN PD. TRIPATHI     … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment of  

acquittal passed by the First Additional Sessions

Judge and Special Judge, Shahdol, in Special Case  

No.5/87, acquitting the Respondents in respect of  

offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian  

Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 5(1)(d) read with  

Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  

1947, hereinafter referred to as 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 Rs.200/- for the licence fee in the State  

Bank and upon inquiry from the said Ghanshyamdas,  

he allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- from the  

2

complainant  as  illegal  gratification  for  getting  

the licence.  Eventually, a written complaint was  

made  by  Ramavtar  to  the  Lokayukt  (Rewa)  of  the  

Special  Police,  Rewa,  which  was  received  by  the  

Deputy Superintendent of Police on 04.06.1986.

4. At  this  juncture,  it  may  be  noted  that  

Ghanshyamdas, who had been made the Respondent No.1  

in  the  Special  Leave  Petition,  died  during  the  

pendency  of  the  petition  and  the  proceedings  

against him have, therefore, abated.

5. Once the written complaint was made, the Office  

of the Special Police Establishment arranged for a  

trap and 20 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination  

each were treated with phenolphthalein powder and  

were kept in the right pocket of the kurta worn by  

Ramavtar.  He was directed to hand over the treated  

currency  notes  to  Ghanshyamdas  and  was  also  

3

cautioned  against  touching  the  currency  notes  

before they were handed over to Ghanshyamdas.

6. According to the prosecution case, the notes in  

question  were  handed  over  by  the  complainant,  

Ramavtar, to Ghanshyamdas, who kept 18 of the notes  

with himself, while giving two of the notes to the  

sole  Respondent,  Harishankar.  Immediately  

thereafter, on being given a pre-arranged signal,  

the trap party came inside and apprehended both the  

Respondents.   Their  hands  were  washed  with  a  

solution of Sodium Carbonate, upon which the water  

turned  pink  in  colour.   A  charge-sheet  was  

submitted  before  the  Special  Judge,  who,  after  

going  through  the  charge-sheet,  framed  charges  

against the accused punishable under Section 161  

I.P.C. and also Section 5(1)(d) read with Section  

5(2)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1947.  

The trial Judge acquitted the Respondents not on  

4

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  findings  of  the  

trial Court and dismissed the appeal upon holding  

that the sanction accorded by the State Government  

under  Section  6  of  the  Act  suffered  from  non-

5

application of mind, since in the sanction order  

only the facts of the prosecution case had been  

mentioned  and  no  reason  had  been  given  for  

according  sanction  in  regard  thereto.   In  the  

absence of a valid sanction, the High Court dropped  

the proceedings against Ghanshyamdas, against whom  

the  appeal  has  abated.   As  far  as  the  sole  

Respondent, Harishankar Bhagwan Prasad Tripathi, is  

concerned, the High Court held that in the absence  

of  any  demand  made  by  the  said  Respondent,  the  

provisions of Section 5(1)(d) of the 1947 Act were  

not  attracted  and  even  the  recovery  of  Rs.200/-  

from  Harishankar  was  not  sufficient  to  hold  him  

guilty of the charges levelled against him.  The  

High Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal as  

against the sole Respondent, Harishankar.   

8. Ms.  Vibha  Datta  Makhija,  learned  Advocate  

appearing  for  the  Appellant,  State  of  Madhya  

6

Pradesh, took us to the order dated 9th February,  

1987, according sanction under Section 6(1)(c) of  

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to initiate  

prosecution  against  Ghanshyamdas  and  Harishankar  

for  the  offences  punishable  under  Section  161  

I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2)  

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the  

other Acts for the time being in force in this  

connection.  Learned counsel pointed out that the  

facts of the case, as would appear 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  

7

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  

in State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri  

& Ors. [(1996) 1 SCC 542], Ms. Makhija submitted  

that  this  Court  had  held  that  while  according  

sanction there was nothing in law which required a  

statement  to  be  made  by  the  Sanctioning  Officer  

that he had personally scrutinized the file and had  

arrived at the required satisfaction. The statement  

made by the Sanctioning Authority that it had fully  

examined  the  material  before  it  and  after  

considering  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  

discussed therein was satisfied that a prima facie  

8

case was made out against the accused person and  

that it was necessary in the interest of justice to  

prosecute  him  in  the  Court,  indicated  that  the  

material on record had been examined by the officer  

concerned who had applied his mind before according  

sanction.  Reference was also made to the decision  

of this Court in  C.S. Krishnamurthy vs.  State of  

Karnataka [(2005) 4 SCC 81], where in a similar  

situation  where  grant  of  sanction  had  been  

questioned, this Court held that the sanction order  

should speak for itself and in case the facts do  

not  so  appear,  it  must  be  proved  by  leading  

evidence  that  all  the  particulars  were  placed  

before  the  Sanctioning  Authority  for  due  

application of mind.  If the sanction order itself  

is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal  

evidence has to be led by the Sanctioning Authority  

or any other evidence to prove that the sanction  

9

had been accorded by a competent person upon due  

application of mind.

10. Ms. Makhija 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  

10

gratification,  nor  was  any  evidence  led  by  the  

prosecution to make out such a case against him.  

On the other hand, except for the fact that a sum  

of Rs.200/- from out of the treated notes had been  

recovered  from  his  possession,  there  is  nothing  

else to indicate that he was in any case involved  

in  the  conspiracy  to  obtain  bribe  for  grant  of  

excise licence. Learned counsel urged that in such  

circumstances, the sole Respondent had been rightly  

acquitted by the Courts below.   

12. Having  carefully  considered  the  submissions  

made on behalf of the respective parties, we are  

unable  to  agree  with  the  reasoning  of  both  the  

learned Special Judge as also the High Court in  

dismissing  the  case  of  the  prosecution  on  the  

ground that proper sanction had not been obtained  

to prosecute the accused persons.  Both the Courts  

have come to an erroneous finding that although the  

11

trap  which  had  been  laid  had  been  proved,  the  

circumstances  in  which  a  sum  of  Rs.200/-  was  

recovered from the sole Respondent, had not been  

properly considered. No attempt has been made by  

the  defence  to  explain  as  to  how  the  tainted  

currency came to be in the possession of the sole  

Respondent, except for the statement that the same  

had  been  handed  over  to  him  by  Ghanshyamdas.  

Unless there was an understanding between the sole  

Respondent and Ghanshyamdas, since deceased, there  

can be no reason for Ghanshyamdas to have given the  

sole Respondent a part of the money which he had  

received by way of illegal gratification.   

13. Even with regard to the grant of sanction, it  

is quite clear that the records of the Lokayukt’s  

Office  had  been  examined  by  the  Principal  

Secretary,  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  while  

granting  such  sanction  for  prosecution.   As  has  

12

been  indicated  by  this  Court  in  Ishwar  Piraji  

Kalpatri’s  case  (supra),  while  granting  sanction  

the officer concerned is not required to indicate  

that he had personally scrutinized the file and had  

arrived at the satisfaction for granting sanction.  

The  narration  of  events  granting  sanction  for  

prosecution  clearly  indicates  the  case  and  the  

reason for grant of such sanction.  In the present  

case also the order granting sanction does not, in  

our view, suffer from any infirmity which prompted  

the Courts below to acquit the accused persons.

14. This appeal, accordingly, succeeds.  The order  

of the learned Special Judge, Shahdol, dated 19th  

May, 1993 in Special Case No. No.5/87, acquitting  

the  accused  of  the  charges  framed  against  them  

under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read  

with Section 5(2) of the 1947 Act and the judgment  

of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 31st March,  

13

2008 in Criminal Appeal No.294 of 1994 are hereby  

set aside.  The appeal is, therefore, allowed and  

the  matter  is  remitted  to  the  learned  Special  

Judge, Shahdol, for passing appropriate orders on  

the merits of the case.      

     …………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (A.K. PATNAIK)

New Delhi Dated: 13.08.2010

14