STATE, CBI, HYDERABAD versus EDWIN DEVASAHAYAM

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 13-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

......,.-
> 
-· 
.... 
. 
.,.... 
----" 
STA TE, CBI, HYDERABAD 
v. 
EDWIN DEV ASAHA YAM 
JULY 13, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7: 
Corruption-Demanding and accepting of bribe by an Officer of 
Railways from his subordinate-Complaint to CBI-Investigation-Charge 
sheet-Trial Court found accused guilty of offence punishable uls. 7 of the 
Act-Reversed by High Court observing that sanction for prosecution as 
obtained was defective-On appeal, Held: Plea relating to lack of authority 
of the secretary in granting the sanction for the prosecution of the accused 
appears to have been given up before the High Court-Without indicating 
any reasons, High Court could not have drawn an adverse conclusion that 
the relevant records not placed before the Railway Board for obtaining the 
sanction-On the facts, no defects in the sanction for prosecution has been 
shown-Under the circumstances, High Court was not justified in taking a 
contrary view. 
Accused working as an Assistant Commercial Manager in the Railways 
allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- as bribe from his sub-ordinate PW-1, 
a Travelling Ticket Examiner in South Central Railway and later accepted 
the same. PW-1 in turn made a complaint to CBI. On the basis of the complaint 
given by PW-1, a case was registered by CBI against the accused and PW-8, 
an Inspector of CBI was entrusted with the task of conducting the 
investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Trial 
Court found the respondent-accused guilty of the offence punishable under 
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved, the accused filed 
an appeal before the High Court. The High Court observed that with reference 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
to the materials on record it was satisfied that the accused was guilty of G 
accepting the bribe and was liable to be punished for offence punishable under 
. 
, 
Section 7 of the Act. However, in view of the fact that the entire record was 
not placed before the Railway Board or its President before obtaining sanction 
for prosecution of the respondent-employee, the sanction so obtained was held 
to be defective and, therefore, directed acquittal of the respondent Hence the 
333 
II 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A present appeal 
'-y 
Appellant-State contended that the High Court having accepted that 
materials on record are sufficient to establish the accusations, should not 
have interferred with the well- reasoned order of the trial court holding the 
accused guilty; that the issue relating to sanction was examined at length by 
B the trial court and it was held that the Secretary was authorized to sign/issue 
the order; that the Board alone was competent to accord sanction for 
prosecution; that PW-7 had in categorical terms stated that it was not 
f._ 
necessary for the entire Board to sit and take a decision and only the Member 
'( 
(Traffic) was the competent authority who could have and had, in fact, accorded 
c sanction for prosecution; and that one Member of the Board can sit as the 
Board as per the Board's Rules; and that there was no material before the 
High Court to come to the conclusion that the entire record was not placed 
before the Board. On the contrary, with reference to the evidence of PW-7 
and the materials on record the trial court had held that all relevant were 
placed before the Board. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
,). 
"'(' 
HELD: I.I. Before the trial Court the st~nd of the respondent was in 
relation to the authority of the Secretary to sign the sanction order. The trial 
court, after analyzing the materials on record, came to hold that the Secretary 
E had the authority. Before the trial court there was no plea raised that the 
relevant records were not placed before the Railway Board. The plea relating 
to lack of authority of the Secretary appears to have been given up before the 
High Court and what seems to have been urged is that the relevant records 
were not placed before the Board. The trial court had categorically noted that 
~ 
F all the relevant records were placed by the Secretary before the Member 
,._, 
(Traffic). Without indicating any basis for the conclusion that records were 
,., 
not placed for consideration, the High Court could not drawn an adverse 
conclusion that the relevant records were not produced before the Board. 
[Para 5) (338-D-F) 
G 
1.2. On· facts of the present case, it has not been 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.