V. K. Tahilramani, J. - (1.)The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th November, 2005 passed by the learned Special judge, Pune in Special Case No. 21 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned special Judge acquitted respondent-original accused of the offences under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.)The prosecution case is that the respondent-original accused was serving as sectional Engineer-cum-Electrical Inspector, Industry-Energy and Labour Depart ment and as such he was a public servant. The complainant runs two factories. The complainant had to install generator in the factory. It is the prosecution case that the accused demanded Rs. 5000/- to complete the entire work relating to generator expeditiously.
I have heard the learned A. P. P. for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge as well as the evidence produced by the learned A. P. P.

One of the main grounds for acquitting the respondent-original accused was that the sanction was not granted by the proper authority. P. W. 2 who was serving as Under Secretary with Public Works Department in Mantralaya, Mumbai had ac corded the sanction. Accused was serving as Sectional Engineer-cum-Electrical Inspector, Industry-Energy and Labour Department and as such he was a public servant. In order to launch prosecution against a public servant for offence under P. C. Act, sanction under section 19 of P. C. Act is necessary. Prosecution has relied upon the sanction Exh. 35 issued by Shri Rashid sayyad (P. W. 2 ). Shri Rashid (P. W. 2) was serving as Under Secretary with Public works Department in Mantralaya, Mumbai and according to him, accused was Class-II Officer. Admittedly, Government of Maharashtra is the appointing and removing authority of the accused. On appreciating evidence of Shri Rashid (P. W. 2), it reveals that Government has formed rules as to how the sanction should be accorded by the government. Reliance has been placed by accused on the Government Resolution No. CDR 1099/pra-Kra 62/99/11-A dated 3. 4. 2000, wherein it is specifically observed that the consent of Chief Minister or Dy. Chief Minister in respect of such Public officers should be obtained before according sanction to launch prosecution against class-I and Class-II public servants. Shri rashid (P. W. 2) admits that Secretary or principal Secretary, as the case may be is the head of the department and the posts of the Secretary in chronology from superior to inferior are that of Principal Secretary, Secretary, Dy. Secretary and lowest one is the Under Secretary. In view of this substantive evidence of Shri Rashid (P. W. 2), it is evident that he is not the Competent Authority to accord sanction to launch prosecution against the accused. Moreover evidence of Shri Rashid (P. W. 2) does not show that the sanction proposal was approved by the then Dy. Chief Minister of maharashtra State and thus on both the counts, it cannot be said that the sanction exh. 35 accorded by Shri Rashid (P. W. 2) is valid.

(3.)The learned Special Judge has taken into consideration this fact as well as the other facts and thereafter he has acquitted the respondent-original accused.
Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected.