No criminal culpability arises from administrative transfers of public prosecutors or procurement decisions unless specific statutory offenses are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. That the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 passed by learned MM-07 (Central) Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2750/2019 and impugned order dated 13.04.2022 passed by learned ASJ (Central) Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Revision No.82/2020, titled as `Sh. Brij Mohan Sehgal vs. Pankaj Sanghi' under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Magistrate and the learned ASJ, dismissed the CC No.2750/2019 and Criminal Revision Petition No.82/2020 by passing the impugned orders dated 14.11.2019 and 13.04.2022 respectively, challenged on the ground of non-application of judicial mind.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal revision petition are that the respondent had illegally purchased "biometric machines" in violation of Rule 4 of Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1978 which provides that no expenditure shall be incurred except on legitimate objects, Rule 149 of the General Financial Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as `GFR 2017') which calls for a detailed assessment before any procurement on an indent from the User Department being the indentor, the Office of Directorate of Prosecution, GNCT, in the present case. It is further alleged that the respondent had illegally transferred and posted Public Prosecutors in violation of Sections 24 & 25 of Cr.P.C., thereby adversely impacting delivery of justice due to shortage of public prosecutors. It is alleged that the courts had to adjourn matters including discharging victims and witnesses in rape cases since no public prosecutor was posted in their court. In this regard, it is pointed out that the respondent was responsible for financial decisions and overall administrative control over public prosecutors in Delhi.

3. It is stated that two junior prosecutors during an illegal enquiry against the son of the petitioner, had demanded Rs.35 lakhs from the petitioner on behalf of the respondent and when the petitioner had filed a corruption complaint, the said complaint was replaced with forged signatures of the petitioner containing false facts. It is stated that the petitioner was forced by circumstances to rebut the claims of the respondent assassinating the character of the petitioner and his family while dealing with Criminal Revision Petition No.82 of 2020. It is stated that the learned ASJ was biased and was influenced by irrelevant facts while passing the impugned order.

4. It is pointed out that as per RTI replies received by the petitioner dated 24.11.2018 from the Directorate of Prosecution GNCTD of Delhi, two Public Prosecutors were transferred to special investigation team, one to Delhi Commission for Women, four to Home Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi, two to Chief Minister Grievance Redressal Cell and three to Delhi Law Ministry. It is stated that as per law, the prosecutors appointed in the Directorate of Prosecution are deputed to conduct criminal cases on behalf of the State in Subordinate Courts and unlike employees of other Government Departments, the Prosecuting Officers cannot be transferred to any other department except to Food Safety Department and Police Training College, the respondent, however, has arbitrarily transferred the public prosecutors to various departments as mentioned above. It is alleged that the respondent had no power or