By Damini Aggarwal-
Under the anti-corruption Act, the DGP refused to grant sanction to one police officer on charges of corruption while giving sanction to prosecute the other two constables. Under the act, a sanction of DGP is required to prosecute police officials.
The court after finding sufficient material against the police inspector under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act has now remanded the matter back to the DGP for reconsideration. The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court observed that an order to refuse sanction to prosecute a public servant should be a reasoned one.
Justices T V Nalawade and M G Sewlikar said, “It needs to be kept in mind that the authority is expected to act upon the material and if the material makes out a prima facie case, giving of sanction cannot be avoided.”
The High Court received a case regarding an investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against the police inspector of Yaval police station in Jalgaon district, Baliram Hire. In the case, the complainant alleged that in January 2017, Baliram Hire threatened to file a rape case as complained by a woman against him if he does not pay Rs. 5 lakhs.
However, the complainant approached the ACB after the incident took place. The ACB conducted a probe and found that at first the woman had approached the police and said that the complainant was forcing her to get into a relationship. But after a few days, she withdrew her complaint. The ACB also found one more application with the police in which claims of rape were made against the complainant but it did not appear to have been given by the woman. However, the court said, there were no police statements about it.
The ACB also found that the complainant was imprisoned by the two constables without registering the entry and then a sum of Rs 40,000 was withdrawn from his bank account by them.
The court said, “The same authority gave sanction to prosecute two constables and due to the material (placed before the court) it is difficult to digest that PI Hire was not involved in the matter. No other reasons are given for refusal of sanction. This court holds that when there is a refusal of sanction, the order needs to be a reasoned one. If reasons are not given, society will lose faith in the judicial system.”
