Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Mahesh G. Jain

V.K Tahilramani, J.:—The applicant-orig. complainant C.B.I Mumbai has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 62 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent No. 1-orig. accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant-Orig. complainant C.B.I and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-orig. accused. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned Counsel for the applicant-CBI.

3. The prosecution case is that the respondent-accused was working as a Accounts Clerk (Office Administration Department), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent demanded and accepted bribe from a travel agent Shri. Satish Doshi, Proprietor of Shree Travels, Matunga, Mumbai for handing over TDS Certificates in the form of 16A of the Income Tax Act, in respect of Shree Travels.

4. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent-orig. accused on the ground that the sanction order was not valid. The sanction order is at Exh.13 PW-1 Shri Yeshwant Kelkar accorded sanction to prosecute the respondent-orig. accused. No doubt PW-1 Shri Kelkar has stated that he examined the documents and took into consideration all the circumstances and thereafter he accorded sanction (Exh.13). However, Exh.14 has also been produced by the prosecution. Exh.14 is a letter written by CBI to PW-1 Kelkar wherein it is mentioned that the sanction order is being forwarded. In view of Exh.14 doubt is raised regarding the validity of sanction order (Exh.13) and it raises serious doubt whether PW-1 Kelkar has infact actually applied his mind while according sanction.

5. Looking to Exh.14 and the other evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view.

6. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e AIR 1971 SC 66Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar and C. Anthony v. K.G Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C. Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record.

7. As observed above, looking to the evidence on record 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.