Judgment

apl1209.25

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1209/2025

Devendra Supda Umbarkar,

aged about 44 years, occupation: service,

Executive Engineer, Maharashtra

State Electricity Distribution

Company, Thane, Mumbai,

at present r/o 2601, Vasudha-B,

Dosti Vihar, Vartak Nagar, Thane,

(West) - 400 606. ….. Applicant.

:: V E R S U S ::

1. State of Maharashtra,

through Anti Corruption Bureau,

Akola, taluka and district Akola.

Through Police Station, Khadan,

Akola, taluka and district Akola.

2. Vikrant Ganeshrao Waghmare,

aged about 48 years,

occupation Deshmukh Peth, near Dr.Babasaheb

Utangale School, Akola,

taluka and district Akola. ….. Non-applicants.

================================

Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel for the Applicant.

Shri A.M.Joshi, APP for the NA No.1/State.

Shri Vinay Sharma, Counsel for NA No.2

================================

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

RESERVED ON : 10/02/2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 20/02/2026

.....2/- 2026:BHC-NAG:2937-DB

Judgment

apl1209.25

2

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties.

Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing

of FIR in connection with Crime No.435/2017 registered for

offences under Section 7(d) and 15 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC.Act) and the consequent

proceeding arising out of the same bearing chargesheet

No.389/2025.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged

by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegation that a

Tender Public Notice was published for Murtizapur Sub-

Division for the purpose of Domestic Meters and for

Replacement of Meters in Murtizapur Sub-Division on

contract basis from the Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution Company, Akola. The complainant applied for

getting the contract on contract basis as he is running a

.....3/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

3

business as Proprietor of “Bhakti Electricals, VHB Colony,

Akola”. OnLine Application form has been submitted for

getting the work by quoting the lowest rate and, therefore,

the Work Order was issued to him for Domestic Single Phase

Meters Replacement by the order of the Executive Engineer,

Rural Division, Akola on 27.6.2017. The Work Order of

Rs.5.00 lacs was given in the name of the firm of the

complainant. It is alleged that as per the order received by

the complainant, he met the Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub-

Division, Murtizapur on various occasions. He was replied by

the said Deputy Engineer that meters are not available with

him and, therefore, the complainant met the applicant who at

the relevant time was working as the Executive Engineer

(Rural). The applicant told the complainant that he has not

completed the work of Balshi Takli on which the complainant

replied that he completed the work, but bills have not been

released. At the relevant time, the applicant demanded

amount Rs.1.00 lac of his previous work of Balshi Takli i.e.

.....4/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

4

10% amount of the Work Order of Murtizapur, Sub-Division

issued to the complainant against contract amount of Rs.5.00

lacs i.e. amount Rs.60,000/- was demanded. It was alleged

that the applicant told the complainant that unless the

amount is paid, he will not issue further Work Order.

On the basis of the said report, the police have

registered the crime against the applicant.

4. The allegation of demand has been verified by drawing

verification panchanama. The conversation between the

complainant and the applicant was recorded. Thereafter, a

trap was laid. The conversation on the day of the trap was

also recorded in the voice recorder. On the day of the trap,

the applicant was not present in the office and, therefore, the

trap was not successful. The trap was failed subsequently

also. Thus, after completion of the investigation, chargesheet

was submitted against the applicant.

.....5/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

5

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in

view of Section 19 of the P.C.Act, unless and until there is a

valid sanction, the court cannot take cognizance against

accused. He submitted that initially the office of the Anti

Corruption Bureau at Nagpur applied for sanction, but the

same was rejected. The Sanctioning Authority refused the

sanction to prosecute the applicant. Thereafter, again, the

investigating agency applied for sanction and without

considering, whether there is any new material available or

not to accord the sanction, the Sanctioning Authority has

awarded the sanction which is against the settled law by the

Hon’ble Apex Court. He submitted that, undisputedly, the

sanction for prosecution of accused on earlier occasion was

rejected by the competent authority. The sanction accorded

subsequently is not valid and legal. He submitted that it is

not the case of the prosecution that after rejection of the

sanction, any new material was placed before the competent

authority with proposal for sanction. He further submitted

.....6/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

6

that in the background of rejection of the sanction earlier,

granting sanction on the same material is not legal and proper

and the subsequent sanction nowhere reflects as to why the

earlier order was reviewed by the Sanctioning Authority.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the

applicant has placed reliance on following decisions:

(1) State of Punjab and anr vs. Mohammed Iqbal

Bhatti, reported in (2009)17 SCC 92;

(3) Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen reported

in (2010) 14 SCC 527, and

(3) Criminal Application APL NO.309/2020

(Kamlakar s/o Sharad Visale vs. State of Mah.,

thr.Anti Corruption Bureau, Akola and anr)

decided by this court on 26.7.2023.

7. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly opposed

the said contentions and submitted that the investigating

agency has applied for sanction as the Sanctioning Authority

.....7/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

7

has not considered material properly and wrongly rejected the

sanction. He submitted that issue, whether there is valid

sanction or not, is to be considered at the time of trial. At this

stage, the sanction is before the court and, therefore, the

court has rightly taken cognizance. In view of that, the

application deserves to be rejected.

It is further submitted that the crime committed by the

accused is serious one. The verification panchanama shows

the conversation between the applicant and the complainant

wherein it is clearly revealed that the applicant has demanded

the amount which is gratification amount.

8. Having heard both sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, it is undisputed that previously sanction

to prosecute the accused by order dated 14.2.2019 was

refused by the competent authority. Subsequent sanction was

granted on 16.9.2025. The order of sanction in question is

dated 16.9.2025. It is undisputed that by this order, the

.....8/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

8

earlier order of refusing the sanction came to be reviewed. It

is nowhere case of the prosecution that after refusal of the

sanction, new material was collected and submitted to the

competent authority seeking review of the earlier order

refusing the sanction. On the contrary, it is the case of the

prosecution that on the basis of the very same material, the

sanction was sought from the competent authority and it was

accorded on 16.9.2025. It is undisputed that in earlier

sanction dated 15.2.2019, the Sanctioning Authority has

considered the entire investigation papers, verification

panchanama, and conversation and observed that the

conversation is in respect of 10% Security Deposit and not the

gratification amount and refused to accord the sanction.

9. Now, question is, whether review of the sanction, in

the facts and circumstances, was in accordance with the law.

.....9/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

9

10. It is necessary to consider the settled legal position

from two decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the

applicant.

11. The identical issue fell for consideration of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another vs.

Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, supra. In the case before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the sanction was refused by order

dated 15.12.2003. The matter was again placed before the

competent authority for sanction and sanction was granted on

14.09.2004 for prosecution of the accused. The legality of the

said order was challenged before High Court of Punjab and

Harayana. The High Court allowed the challenge and held

that the state has no power to review the order of sanction.

This order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court maintained the order of Punjab and

Haryana High Court. The observations from paragraph Nos.6,

7 and 9, 20, and 21 are relevant for the purpose of this case

and the same are extracted below:-

.....10/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

10

“6. Although the State in the matter of grant or

refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory

jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean

that power once exercised cannot be exercised

once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a

subsequent stage, express power of review in the

State may not be necessary as even such a power

is administrative in character. It is, however,

beyond any cavil that while passing an order for

grant of sanction, serious application of mind on

the part of the authority concerned is imperative.

The legality and/or validity of the order granting

sanction would be subject to review by the

criminal courts. An order refusing to grant

sanction may attract judicial review by the

Superior Courts.

7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend

upon application of mind on the part of the

authority concerned and the material placed

before it. All such material facts and material

evidence must be considered by it. The

sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such

material facts and evidence collected during the

.....11/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

11

investigation. Even such application of mind does

not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic

evidence may be placed before the court in that

behalf. While granting sanction, the authority

cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact

nor can it pass an order on extraneous

consideration not germane for passing a statutory

order. It is also well settled that the Superior

Courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority

either to grant sanction or not to do so. The

source of power of an authority passing an order

of sanction must also be considered. (See

Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujrat)

[(1997) 7 SCC 622]. The authority concerned

cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to

rectification of a higher authority.

9. In the aforementioned situation, the High

Court, opined:

"Once the Government passes the order under

Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, declining the

sanction to prosecute the official concerned,

reviewing such an order on the basis of the same

.....12/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

12

material, which already stood considered, would

not be appropriate or permissible. The

Government is expected to act consciously and

cautiously while taking such serious decisions. The

perusal of the record shows that pointed queries

had been raised to be answered by the Vigilance

Bureau but no answer was forthcoming nor any

had been submitted subsequently which

culminated into passing of the later order dated

September 30, 2004. We refrain ourselves from

mentioning the queries which had been raised but

it would suffice to say that the queries were never

answered at the relevant time when the order

dated December 15, 2003 had been passed nor

was the same ever commented upon as no

answers were placed before the competent

authority for passing the impugned order dated

September 30, 2004.

20. It was, therefore, not a case where fresh

materials were placed before the sanctioning

authority. No case, therefore, was made out that

the sanctioning authority had failed to take into

consideration a relevant fact or took into

.....13/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

13

consideration an irrelevant fact. If the clarification

sought for by the Hon'ble Minister had been

supplied, as has been contended before us, the

same should have formed a ground for

reconsideration of the order. It is stated before us

that the Government sent nine letters for

obtaining the clarifications which were not replied

to.

21. The High Court in its judgment has clearly

held, upon perusing the entire records, that no

fresh material was produced. There is also nothing

to show as to why reconsideration became

necessary. On what premise such a procedure was

adopted is not known. Application of mind is also

absent to show the necessity for reconsideration or

review of the earlier order on the basis of the

materials placed before the sanctioning authority

or otherwise.”

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen reported in (2010) 14

SCC 527 has considered the identical issue. In this case, the

.....14/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

14

Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the decision in the case of

State of Punjab and another vs. Mohammad Iqbal Bhatti,

supra. The Hon’ble Apex Court approved the view taken in

Bhatti’s case. The observations from paragraph Nos.12, 13

and 14 are relevant for the purpose of this case where the

legal position is enunciated. These paragraphs are extracted

below.

“12. It is true that the Government in the matter

of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises

statutory power and that would not mean that

power once exercised cannot be exercised again or

at a subsequent stage in the absence of express

power of review in no circumstance whatsoever.

The power of review, however, is not unbridled or

unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to

follow that once the statutory power under

Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the

Code has been exercised by the Government or the

competent authority, as the case may be, it is not

permissible for the sanctioning authority to review

or reconsider the matter on the same materials

.....15/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

15

again. It is so because unrestricted power of

review may not bring finality to such exercise and

on change of the Government or change of the

person authorized to exercise power of sanction,

the matter concerning sanction may be reopened

by such authority for the reasons best known to it

and a different order may be passed. The opinion

on the same materials, thus, may keep on

changing and there may not be any end to such

statutory exercise.

13. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on

the same materials cannot be a ground for

reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order

refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case

where fresh materials have been collected by the

investigating agency subsequent to the earlier

order and placed before the sanctioning authority

and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by

the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh

materials an opinion is formed that sanction to

prosecute the public servant may be granted, there

may not be any impediment to adopt such a

course.

.....16/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

16

14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is

not even the case of the appellant that fresh

materials were collected by the investigating

agency and placed before the sanctioning

authority for reconsideration and/or for review of

the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As a

matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent

order dated 15.03.2008 it is clear that on the

same materials, the sanctioning authority has

changed its opinion and ordered sanction to

prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is

clearly impermissible.”

13. Learned APP for the State vehemently submitted on

the basis of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1405/2019

(State Rep.By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance

and Anti Corruption Chennai City-I Department vs.

G.Easwaran) decided on26.3.2025 wherein the Hon’ble Apex

Court by referring its earlier decision in the case of Director,

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aswal,

.....17/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

17

reported in (2015) 16 SCC 163 observed that, “all the above

apart, time and again, this Court has laid down that the

validity of a sanction order, if one exists, has to be tested on

the touchstone of the prejudice to the accused which is

essentially a question of fact and, therefore, should be left to

be determined in the course of the trial and not in the

exercise of jurisdiction either under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a proceeding under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution.”

It is further held that, “there is no doubt that the High

Court committed an error in quashing the prosecution on the

ground that the sanction to prosecute is illegal and invalid. In

conclusion, we find that the objections raised in the revision

petition against the Special Court’s order dismissing the

discharge application were identical to the grounds raised in

the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., from which the present

appeal arises.”

.....18/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

18

It is further held that, “the validity of the sanction can

always be examined during the course of the trial and the

problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the

State could have been explained by producing the file at the

time of trial.”

14. Thus, in the judgment, on which the learned APP for

the State has placed reliance on, issue of validity sanction was

raised.

Whereas, the issue involved before this court is,

whether the Sanctioning Authority can review its earlier order

of refusing the sanction without having any new material.

15. The issue involved before this court if appreciated in

the light of the law laid down in the above said two decisions,

it leaves no manner of doubt that on fact as well as in the law

the order passed by the Sanctioning Authority cannot be

sustained. The legal position culled out from the above

decisions is that the order of refusal of sanction cannot be

.....19/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

19

reviewed unless and until the fresh material has been

collected and submitted to the competent authority with a

request to review the earlier sanction order and grant the

sanction. A change of opinion per se on the same materials

cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier

order refusing to grant sanction. The order refusing a sanction

can be reviewed on the basis of fresh material collected by the

Investigating Agency subsequent to the earlier order and

placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the

matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in the

light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction

to prosecute the public servant may be granted.

16. In the backdrop of the above, facts of the case in hand

need consideration. Undisputedly, the proposal for review of

sanction was submitted on the basis of the same material

which was submitted on the earlier three occasions. The

earlier sanction order dated 14.2.2019 shows that the

Sanctioning Authority has considered documents i.e. service

.....20/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

20

documents of the applicant, the Word Order issued to the

complainant, and the conversation recorded between the

complainant and the applicant. It was observed that from the

conversation that the amount demanded appears to be of

Security Deposit which is required to be deposited by the

complainant against the Work Order. Similarly, in the

subsequent sanction order dated 16.9.2025 also, the similar

material was considered by the Sanctioning Authority.

17. Perusal of the sanction order shows that it is silent

about refusal of sanction earlier on the proposal of the

investigating officer. Similarly, subsequent sanction order

dated 16.9.2025 is silent about the reasons for review despite

the earlier sanction order was refused. It was not mentioned

in the sanction order that the material submitted earlier for

consideration was not properly considered while refusing the

sanction. However, the subsequent sanction order is also

replica of the earlier sanction order. The authority, according

to the sanction, in view of refusal of sanction earlier, was

.....21/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

21

required to record reasons. The subsequent sanction order

does not mention reasons. Even, there is no passing reference

of the refusal of sanction earlier in the subsequent sanction

order and, therefore, in my view, in this case, review of

refusal of sanction on earlier occasion, if examined, in the

light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it does

not pass legal test. It needs to be stated that if the authority

was aggrieved by the refusal of sanction, for one reason or the

other, the remedy available to the authority was to challenge

the order of refusal of sanction before the Court of law. The

investigating agency did not challenge the earlier order of

refusal of sanction in the court of law. Instead of challenging

the said order before the court of law, the same material was

considered and the sanction was granted and, therefore, the

sanction has to be held “improper” and “illegal.”

18. In my view, the case of the applicant is fully covered by

the two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by

learned counsel for the applicant.

.....22/-

Judgment

apl1209.25

22

19. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to

be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed.

(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.435/2017 registered

for offences under Section 7(d) and 15 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and the consequent proceeding arising

out of the same bearing chargesheet No.389/2025 are hereby

quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Devendra

Supda Umbarkar.

Application stand disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

...../-