- 1 - criappln1916.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1916 OF 2024 Vijay Bhagwat Nathjogi ….Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another …..Respondents Mr. H. F. Pawar, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the State. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for quashment of proceeding in connection with Crime No. 3089/2013 registered with Bhusawal Bajarpeth Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 8, 10, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act solely on the ground that the competent authority has refused to grant sanction to the prosecution of the present Applicant by order dated 30.12.2014. 2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the complainant, Dr. Rahul Yogendra Sharma, purchased flat at Bhusawal, for consideration of Rs. 15 Lacs and submitted an application on 14.11.2013 to the Land Records Office, Bhusawal, to mutate his - 2 - criappln1916.24.odt name in the city survey record. To process the said application, the present Applicant, who was working as Maintenance Surveyor at the Land Records Office, Bhusawal, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs 1,000/- and directed the complainant to hand over the bribe amount to co-accused Madhukar Sopan Nale, a private person working with the present Applicant at the Land Records Office, Bhusawal. It is contended that the complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon on 19.11.2013. Thereafter, on the day of the incident i.e. 19.11.2013, the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau along with police officers and two panchas from the Industrial Training Institute arranged a trap near the Land Records Office, where the complainant handed over Rs. 1,000/- in anthracene-treated notes of Rs. 500/- each to the co-accused as directed by the present Applicant. The co- accused accepted the bribe money, placed it in his shirt pocket, and was caught red-handed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau team. The two anthracene-treated Rs. 500/- notes were recovered under a detailed panchanama, and chemical tests confirmed the presence of anthracene powder. Consequently, the present Applicant was taken into custody and the present First information Report came to be filed. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed. - 3 - criappln1916.24.odt 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that though charge- sheet has been filed against the Applicant, admittedly, by order dated 30.12.2014, the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik Region, Nashik, refused sanction for prosecution of the present Applicant. He makes further submission that this order has not been taken exception to till date. It is his submission that in absence of any sanction to the prosecution, the proceeding under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be allowed to be continued against the present Applicant. 4. Learned APP made all attempts to oppose the application by referring to the judgment of Zarkhand High Court in case of Shivendra Nath Mishra vs. CBI (through Union of India) in Criminal M. P. No. 2079/2021. He drew attention of the Court to the observations made in paragraph No. 14 pf the order so also judgment in case of Prakash Singh Badal vs. State of Punjab, 2007(1) SCC 1 referred therein. 5. Even if it is accepted that in appropriate cases, where sanction has been obtained subsequent to failure of trial for want of sanctioin, fresh trial can be initiated. However, this preposition cannot be - 4 - criappln1916.24.odt applied when there is refusal of sanction by the competent authority. here in this case, undisputedly, sanction has been refused on 30.12.2014. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that exception has been taken to this order. Thus, the factum of refusal of sanction by the competent authority has attained finality qua Applicant. In such circumstances, having regard to provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be allowed to be proceeded in view of refusal of sanction of prosecution against the Applicant, which is a pre-condition for prosecution of any Government employee. 6. In view of the above, this is a fit case wherein further proceeding against the Applicant cannot be allowed to be continued. As such, application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) dyb