M. Jeyapaul, J. - (1.) BOTH accused Babu Singh and Ramesh Kumar who were convicted for the offence under Section 120B IPC and Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and were sentenced there under have preferred the present appeal.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that both the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/ -to withdraw the threat of demolition of the house put up by PW1 Brijender Singh in his agricultural land. The amount was settled at Rs. 1000/ -after negotiation between the complainant and the accused. PW1 Brijender Singh who was not willing to part with the sum of Rs. 1000/ -as bribe to the accused approached the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chandigarh with a complaint alongwith a sum of Rs. 1000/ -. PW11 Dr. Birbal Sharma, Administrative Officer from the office of Regional Manager, National Insurance Company and PW12 Vijay Kumar Anand, Inspector CBI, were associated for the purpose of the trap proposed to be laid as against the accused. There was a demonstration of Phenolphthalein test to make PW1, PW11 and PW12 understand the effect of Phenolphthalein powder. The currency notes produced by PW1 were treated with Phenolphthalein powder. It is the further case of the prosecution that the amount was first handed over to Dhabawala as directed by accused Babu Singh by PW1 Brijender Singh and thereafter the amount was received by the accused from the said Dhabawala. The police descended on the location after signal was given by PW1 to the police party. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared. The front pockets of accused Babu Singh, Ramesh and Dhabawala Surat Singh were dipped in the solution. They turned Pink. Recovery of the material objects were effected by the police. Sh. Chattar Singh, IAS, Deputy Commissioner -cum -Estate Officer, Chandigarh who was the appointing authority for the accused having thoroughly perused the materials collected by the police and produced before him, granted sanction for prosecution (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B) as against the accused. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence produced by the prosecution and the proper sanction accorded by Sh. Chattar Singh, IAS, Estate Officer, Chandigarh recorded conviction as against both the accused.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Appellants would vehemently submit that the sanction orders (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B) were not granted by the competent authority. It was not established who was the appointing authority and who had got the power to dismiss the Appellants from service. Referring to the evidence of DW1 Bidhi Chand, he would submit that in a similar case the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh had granted sanction for prosecution. It has not been established as to whether the Estate Officer or the Deputy Commissioner or the Home Secretary, Chandigarh was the competent authority to appoint the Appellants and remove them from service. Therefore, it is his submission that the case of the prosecution will have to be thrown out as there was no proper sanction from the competent authority. Per contra, learned Counsel for the CBI, Mr. Ajay Kaushik would submit that the evidence of PW10 Avinash Kapoor in the light of the sanction orders as Exs.PW10/A and PW10/B would go to establish that Sh. Chattar Singh, IAS who was the Estate Officer has got the power to appoint the Appellants in service and dismiss them from service. The sanction orders Exs.PW10/A and PW10/B would also read that Sh. Chattar Singh, IAS having adverted to the fact that he was the authority to appoint the Appellants in service and dismiss them from service has granted sanction after thorough scrutiny of the incriminating materials collected and produced before him.;