In pursuance of the findings of the Special Judge, the Respondent had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.
1539 of 1995 .
200 had also been imposed on him.
It was further stated that the said sanction order Exhibit P/6 in the proceedings before the Special Judge had number been proved because the District Magistrate who passed the order had number been subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to prove the same.
Application for exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.
It was held that since the sanction order did number enumerate reasons, it had been given mechanically and was hence illegal.
Aggrieved by this result, the Respondent had filed an appeal before the High Court.
Leave granted.
Prior to the impugned judgment of the High Court, a Special Judge at Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh had companyvicted the Respondent for offences under Section 7 and Section 13 1 d ii read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The State of Madhya Pradesh had filed a petition seeking special leave to appeal against a judgment given by a single judge at the Jabalpur Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.
