VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

822 DECISION - 426
appellant ‘accepted’ the money and the defence story that the
complainant thrusted the money is patently untrue. Consequent upon
such proof, the presumption under sec. 4(1) of the P.C. Act, 1947
would operate and since the appellant did not rebut that presumption
the conviction of the appellant under sec. 161 IPC has got to be
upheld.
On the question whether the conviction of the appellant for
the other offence under sec. 5(1)(d) read with sec. 5(2) of the P.C.
Act can be sustained or not, the Supreme Court observed that the
prosecution led evidence that the appellant and the other accused
persons had earlier demanded bribe to exempt their hospital from
the operation of the Employees Provident Funds Act. Since there is
no reason to disbelieve their evidence and since their evidence gets
amply corroborated by the fact of acceptance of Rs.1000 by the
appellant subsequently on 2.4.1984, as testified by a number of
witnesses and it is manifested that the appellant obtained the money
pursuant to the demand earlier made by him by abusing his position
as a public servant. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of
the appellant under sec. 5(2) of the P.C. Act is also well-merited.
(426)
Sanction of prosecution — under court orders
Sanction order is erroneous, having been passed
mechanically as per orders of High Court.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat,
1997 Cri.L.J. SC 4059
Since the validity of “sanction” depends on the applicability
of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also
the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily
follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent
mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution
has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority
should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external
force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since
the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the