Bombay High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Forest Officer Upon Finding Forest Dept Was Dictated By Law Dept In Sanctioning Prosecution

The Bombay High Court recently held that the sanctioning authority for a corruption case cannot exercise its power influenced by the dictation of others.

Justice Bharati Dangre quashed a corruption case against a Range Forest Officer (RFO) upon observing that the sanction to prosecute him was invalid as the Forrest Department, while of the clear opinion that he couldn't be prosecuted, granted sanction on the dictate of the Law Department.

“Acting upon the dictate of the Law and Judiciary Department, the Forest Department i.e. the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution noted, that since the Law Department is of the view that prima facie evidence is available to prosecute Shri Thete, RFO and others, in respect of the aforesaid offence, the Revenue and Forest Department, prepared a draft sanction order for approval and on it being approved by the Law Department, the sanction order was issued, necessarily without application of mind by the competent authority”, the court held.

The court allowed a Criminal Revision Application filed by one Sunil Thete, challenging the charges against him under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved an alleged bribery incident during a government-contracted road construction project.

According to the prosecution, in 2014, Manik S Pawar, an employee of M/s.R.V. Construction Company, encountered hindrances in a road construction project in Mouza Malegaon, Kudshet Shirgaon.

The tender for this project had been accepted by the government, and work was underway. On December 27, Thete, serving in the capacity of the Range Forest Officer, allegedly seized the machinery involved in the construction and abruptly halted the ongoing work.

It was alleged that Thete made a demand for a bribe from Pawar to allow the construction work to recommence. The initial demand was Rs. 1 lakh, but after negotiations, the amount was allegedly settled at Rs. 75,000.

According to the prosecution, out of the agreed-upon bribe amount, Thete accepted Rs. 15,000 from Pawar on December 27, 2014. Subsequently, Thete allegedly instructed Pawar to bring the remaining Rs. 60,000 within the next two days to facilitate the continuation of the road construction.

The matter was reported to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), leading to a subsequent trap operation and the eventual registration of an FIR against Thete and other forest officials. Thete's application for discharge was rejected by the Sessions Court, Kalyan on September 18, 2019. Thus, he approached the High Court.

The Revenue and Forest Department was the competent authority in this case to grant sanction for prosecution against the accused public servants. Section Officer of the Department expressly opined that the trap laid was not successful as the bribe amount/demanded was not accepted.

The Forest Office was of the opinion that no sanction could be granted, as there was no proof of acceptance of the bribe amount and the factor of 'Demand' itself was doubtful since there was no conclusive proof on analysis of the voice of the applicant.

The Forest Department referred the matter to the Law and Judiciary Department for an opinion. The Law Department, after seeking a voice analysis report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, opined that there was prima facie evidence to prosecute Thete and others involved.

Accordingly, the Revenue and Forest Department granted permission to accord sanction to prosecute Sunil Thete at the direction of the Law Department.

In such light, the court emphasized the pivotal role of an independent and unbiased decision-making process by the sanctioning authority.

It underscored that the validity of a sanction depended on the competent authority's thorough application of mind to the facts and material evidence. It further noted that the Forest Department had initially expressed reservations about the sanction but, ultimately, seemed to act on the directive of the Law and Judiciary Department.

“It is crystal clear that an Authority, who is conferred with a power to take a decision and exercise it's discretion, cannot act at the dictation of another, though it is open to take into account advice or assistance, but a decision taken is it's own”, the court observed.

The court thus concluded that the sanctioning authority had not independently applied its mind, and the sanction order was issued mechanically.

It was held that the sanction lacked validity, deeming the entire criminal case against Sunil Thete an abuse of the legal process. Thus, the court set aside the order dated September 18, 2019, rejecting Thete's discharge plea.

Advocates Sudeep Pasbola and Ayush Pasbola i/b Sandeep Kumar Singh represented the applicant. APP SR Agarkar represented the State.

Case no. – Criminal Revision Application No. 5 Of 2020

Case Title – Sunil Achyutrao Thete v. State of Maharashtra