R. SUNDARARAJANversusSTATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI, CHENNAI

                             R. SUNDARARAJAN                                      A
                                       11.

                   STATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI, CHENNAI

                             OCTOBER 19, 2006

                [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]                            B


       Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988-Section 7 rlw Section 13-Demand
of illegal gratification by public servant-Complaint-Trap-Accused caught
red handed demanding and accepting illegal gratification-Trial after getting      C
sanction-Conviction by courts below-Sanction order questioned-On
appeal, held: Accused rightly convicted-Sanction order granted after
consideration of abundant material-However, Supreme Court cannot sit in
appeal over the sanction order-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section
197.
                                                                                  D
       Appellant-accused, after having come to know about approval for grant
of permanent telephone connection to the subscriber, through the officials of
his department (PWs 5 and 8), went to the house of allottee and demanded
illegal gratification in order to get new permanent number allotted to her.
Subscriber filed a complaint through P.W 2. On enquiry it came to light that
the accused was in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification     E
from the subscribers. A trap was arranged and he was caught red handed
demanding and accepting illegal gratification. After obtaining the sanction,
chargesheet was filed.

      Trial Court found the accused guilty under Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and punished him under Section 7 thereof. High Court confirmed          F
the conviction and sentence.

       In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the sanction order was
vitiated as the same was passed without any material.

     Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                             G

     HELD: 1. From the facts on record, it is evident that the appellant was
caught red handed taking bribe and it appears that he was in the habit of
demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the subscribers. There is
                                     499                                          H
    500                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200f] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and High Court or
    with the punishment awarded to accused. 1503-CI

        2. It cannot be said that the sanction order was vitiated as there was no
  material on which it could have been passed. This Court cannot look into the
  adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and
B this court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. The order
  granting sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before
  the sanctioning authority who considered the same at great detail. Only
  because some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by itself,
  would not vitiate the order of sanction. In fact in this case there was abundant
C material before the sanctioning authority. 1503-D-FI
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I084 of
    2006.

            From the Final Judgment and Order dated 31.1.2006 of the High Court
D of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1998.
          Dr. A.E. Chelliah, C. Basanjha Kumar Chelliah, K. Ramanujam, P.
     Karunakaran, A. Annadurai, K. Shiva Kumar, C. Saisullah, S.K.
     Bandyopadhyay, B.S. Bilwaria and Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant.

E         A. Sharan, A.S.G., Amit Anand Tiwari and P. Parmeswaran for the
     Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            MARKANDEY KA TJU, J. Leave granted.
F          This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras
     High Court dated 31.01.2006 by which the appeal of the accused-appellant
     against his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention
     of Corruption Act by the Trial Court was upheld.

G           Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

           The facts in brief are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the
     accused') was employed as group "D" staff, A/C and Power, Harbour Telephone
     Exchange, Chennai-1 and as such, he was a public servant. It is alleged that
     the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1500/- on 9.11.1992 from
H    Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the cousin ofTmt. Nagalakshmi at No. 38, Mosque
   R. SUNDARARAJAN r. STATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI, CHENNAI [MARKANDEY KA TJU,J]   50 J

Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting permanent         A
telephone connection under OYT. The amount was demanded at 8.05 p.m. on
9.11.1992 in the house of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and the appellant was caught red
handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification.

       Jayakumar (P.W.5), who is the younger brother of the accused has been
working as LDC in Madras Telephones Commercial Section (South), G.R.                   B
Complex, Mount Road, Chennai-35 and Narayanaswamy (P.W.8) was also
working in the same section as UDC and they were dealing with new telephone
connections of Madras Telephones (South) and they used to help the accused
and inform with regard to new telephone connections and the movement of
files and the accused used to meet the subscribers and by convincing them              C
as if he was helping them in getting new telephone connection, he was
collecting money.

        Tmt. Nagalakshmi is a widow and was residing at No.38, Mosque Street,
 Vadapalani, Madras-26 and she applied for new telephone connection under
 OYT Scheme and she wanted urgent telephone connection in her residence, D
 since she was under medical treatment for diabetes and chest pain. She also
 applied for temporary telephone connection to the Chief General Manager,
 Madras- I0. enclosing medical certificate. The General Manager (Exchanges),
 Madras Telephones sanctioned temporary telephone connection on 31.12.1991
 to her for six months and it was dealt with by Jayakumar (P.W.5), brother of
 the accused in providing telephone connection to Tmt. Nagalakshmi. In May, E
 1992, she applied for extension of six months for the temporary telephone
 connection and it was processed by V. Narayanaswamy (P.W.8) and extension
 was approved. As per the release of 747 new telephone connections ordered
 by AGM (South) on 5.8.1992, Tmt. Nagalakshmi was eligible for new telephone
connection and Narayanaswamy (P.W.8), who was dealing with the file, put F
up note to regularize the temporary line already available with Tmt. Nagalakshmi
and to close the temporary line and it was finally approved by the Commercial
Officer South (111) on 27. l 0.1992. On 28.10.1992, the telex message for closing
the temporary connection in respect of telephone No. 427112 provided to Tmt.
Nagalakshmi and simultaneously for providing permanent connection with
the same telephone number was transmitted to the officials concerned and G
though the temporary telephone connection file had to go to the section
dealing with new permanent telephone connection, the temporary connection
dealing with new permanent connection was not sent to the section dealing
with new permanent connection till 9.11.1992. The accused came to know all
the above movements of file, passing orders, etc., through his brother H
    502                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Jayakumar (P.W.5) and Narayanaswamy (P.W.8), who dealt with the said files
    and after knowing about the application for release of new pem1anent telephone
    connection to Tmt. Nagalakshmi went to her house on 6.11.92 and told her
    that if she is prepared to pay Rs. 3000/- as bribe she would get a permanent
    connection, otherwise the temporary connection would be disconnected. The
    accused also informed her that he would come to her house c·n 9.11.1992 and
B   at that time Rs. 1500/- should be paid as advance and the balance of Rs.1500/
    - on receipt of the allotment letter. The accused himself wrote a letter on behalf
    of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and obtained signature of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and then
    informed her that he would come to her house at about 7.00 p.m. on 9.11.1992.

c requested
       Tmt. Nagalakshmi, who was not willing to pay the bribe to the accused,
            her cousin to help in the matter, who on behalf of her sister, lodged
  a written complaint on 9 .11.1992 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB
  Madras, and on the basis of which, the complaint was registered by the
  Inspector of Police (P.W.4) and he made discrete enquiries, in which it came
  to light that the accused was in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal
D gratification from the subscribers, who in the normal course had been allotted
  telephone connections, in the pretext of getting them new telephone
  connections. Accordingly, a trap was held as directed by the said Inspector
  of Police (P. W.4).

        In the trap conducted by P.W.4 in the presence ofGovindarajan (P.W.3),
E Assistant Manager (vig), UIIC, Royapetah, Madras and one G. Sankaran, the
  accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1500/- on 9.11.1992 from
  Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the cousing ofTmt. Nagalakshmi at No.38, Mosque
  Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting permanent
  telephone connection under OYT. The amount was demanded at 8.05 p.m. on
F 9.11.1992 in the house of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and the accused was caught red
  handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification. Necessary
  test was conducted and mahazars were also prepared. The proceedings after
  the acceptance of the bribe by the accused were video-graphed by constable
  Nagarajan, using the departmental video camera. Then the trap party proceeded
  to the house cf the accused and as per the search made, they recovered
G eleven diary sheets, out of which in one of the diary sheets, the name of Tmt.
  Nagalakshmi was written. After obtaining sanction order Ex.P-1 and completing
  the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

        The trial court after considering all the evidence found the accused
H guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded him punishment
   R. SUNDARARAJAN 1·. STATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI. CHENNAI [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.J   503

under Section 7 of the Act by imposing the sentence of six months Rigorous A
Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and a further sentence of six months
R.I in default of payment of fine. In addition the trial court also held the
appellant guilty under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
awarded him one year R. I and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of it
further six months R.I.
                                                                                         B
      In appeal the High Court after elaborate discussion of the evidence
upheld the judgment of the trial court.

      From the facts on record, it is evident that the appellant was caught red
handed taking bribe and it appears that he was in the habit of demanding and
accepting illegal gratification from the subscribers. We, therefore, see no              C
reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and High Court or with
the punishment awarded to accused.

         There is no dispute that the sanction order was passed by the competent
~~                                                                                       D
       Dr. A. Chelliah, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted
that the sanction order was vitiated as there was no material on which it could
have been passed. We do not agree.

      In this connection, it may be mentioned that we cannot look into the E
adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and
we cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. The order granting
sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before the
sanctioning authority who considered the same at great details. Only because
some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by itself, in our
opinion, would not vitiate the order of sanction. In fact in this case there was F
abundant material before the sanctioning authority, and hence we do not
agree that the sanction order was in any way vitiated.

     There is no merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed.

K.K.T.                                                          Appeal dismissed. G