Bombay HC quashes punishment of convicted principal – Hindustan Times

The Bombay high court (HC) recently set aside the 2011 conviction of the principal of a government-run training institute who was tried for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The court dismissed the conviction on the grounds that the principal secretary of school education department had not applied his mind independently while sanctioning criminal proceedings against the principal as the chief minister (CM) had already sanctioned it.

The principal had asked the management of an institute to pay him ₹1 lakh as gratification for getting them an approval from the education department. The institute had lodged a complaint with Satara police and the principal was apprehended while accepting ₹50,000.

The single bench of justice Bharati Dangre, while hearing the appeal against the May 2011 conviction by a special court, was informed that the appellant had been tried for offences under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was to undergo two sentences of rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Advocate Girish Kulkarni for the appellant informed the court that as his client was working in a government institute, he was treated as a public servant and the procedure against him was initiated accordingly.

In 2009, an institute had approached the appellant seeking his intervention in getting the approval for 10 additional students admitted by them from the deputy director of education. Though he was bound to help the institute, the principal sought a gratification of ₹1 lakh. The institute lodged a complaint after the principal accepted ₹50,000 and he was booked for the same in 2011.

Kulkarni submitted that as the principal drew a salary of more than ₹10,000, sanction to prosecute him was sought from the ministry of school education. In turn, the ministry sent it for approval to the CM. On receipt of approval from the chief minister’s office, criminal proceedings against the principal started and he was tried and sentenced.

Kulkarni said that as the issue of giving sanction for prosecution was serious, the ministry should have applied its mind after receiving the approval from the CM. He further submitted that the officer concerned had admitted to not applying his mind, and hence the entire prosecution and conviction was not valid and should be set aside.

After hearing the submissions, the bench observed, “The sanction accorded by the sanctioning authority is an invalid sanction, and at this stage, it is also not possible to relegate the prosecution to obtain a fresh sanction since more than a decade has elapsed when the appellant was arraigned as an accused and it is too late in the day to prosecute him with the fresh sanction, at this stage. The lacuna on part of the prosecution, therefore, leaves no room other than to discharge the appellant of the charges levelled against him.” The bench then quashed and set aside the judgement of conviction and disposed of the appeal.