VIJAY BHAGWAT NATHJOGIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                 -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