LexDASHRATH versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2536 : 2025 INSC 654 Dashrath v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2120 of 2025) 24 April 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The conviction of the appellant as well as the sentence imposed on him u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is questioned. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – Appellant contended that i) sanction to prosecute was mechanically granted; ii) investigation was conducted by an Inspector of Police (PW-4), although in terms of the statutory mandate contained in s.17 of the PC Act, no officer lower in rank than a Deputy Superintendent of Police can investigate the crime; iii) the demand was not proved and the conviction is indefensible having regard to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT Delhi); and iv) one of the seizure witnesses was related to the complainant: Held: As regards first contention, if a draft order is placed before the sanctioning authority and he is satisfied that nothing needs to be added/deleted therefrom, the grant of sanction cannot be faulted merely on the ground of absence of addition of words to/ deletion of words from the draft – This Court has noticed that PW-3 made four minor corrections to ensure that the substance conforms to the form in which the sanction was required to be given, without altering the substance (i.e. the contents) – On facts, there has been no irregularity, far less illegality, in grant of sanction – Answering the second contention, the Special Court referred to Government Order dated 19.04.1969 bearing no. MIS0389/767/CR-140/POL-3, issued in exercise of powers conferred by the 1st proviso to s.17 of the PC Act authorizing all * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2537 Dashrath v. The State of Maharashtra the police inspectors in the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Maharashtra to investigate any offence punishable thereunder – Considering such legal position, it was held by the Special Court there was no merit in the contention that investigation had not been conducted by an officer competent to do so – The finding of the Special Court is affirmed – On question of demand, in view of the evidence tendered by the witnesses for the prosecution, which are on record, as well as the answers given by the appellant in course of his examination u/s.313, Cr.PC – The demand has been proved without a doubt – As far as evidence of seizure witness (PW-2) is concerned, his evidence need not be discarded, on the facts of this case, merely because he was related to the complainant, as alleged – The evidence of the said witness had been found creditworthy as his version in-chief was not shaken after thorough cross-examination – Hence, there is no reason to hold that by reason of mere relationship, the conviction would stand vitiated – In any event, even apart from the seizure witness, the other evidence on record do suggest that no error was committed by the Special Court in convicting the appellant and by the High Court in affirming such conviction. [Paras 14, 16, 19, 20] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) – Appellant convicted u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – The High Court upheld the conviction and also the punishment of R.I. of two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.7, and R.I. of a year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable u/s.13, with default stipulation, imposed on the appellant – Before the Supreme Court, appellant urged to exercise power u/Art.142 of the Constitution to relieve him of the necessity to serve his prison term: Held: While affirming the conviction of the appellant u/s.7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w. s.13(2), PC Act, but having regard to the date of the incident of offence, the advanced age of the appellant, the mental anxiety and continued stress that he must have experienced all these years induced by the pendency of proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that imposition of sentence of prison term for the minimum period would sufficiently serve the interests of justice – Accordingly, this Court alters the sentence of 2 years R.I. for the offence u/s.7 to a term of S.I. for a year without, however, 2538 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports altering the sentence of imprisonment ordered fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.