1999 Supreme(Raj) 1198
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ashok Parihar, J.
Jagdish Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan And Another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2963 of 1995.
Decided On : 8-06-1999
Sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be reviewed and a fresh sanction order can be issued, even after an initial refusal of sanction, if there is sufficient material to justify prosecution.
Headnote:
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 6A - REVIEW OF SANCTION - AUTHORITY TO GRANT - FRESH SANCTION - VALIDITY - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OR INHERENT POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 482 CR.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Office Superintendent, was involved in a trap case of anti-corruption in 1993. A sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act was initially refused but later granted. The petitioner challenged the fresh sanction order, arguing that it was issued under pressure from the government and that the competent authority had already refused sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grant of sanction for prosecution is an administrative order and that there is no provision of law that such orders cannot be reviewed subsequently. The court also found that there was enough material before the Bureau of Investigation to prosecute the petitioner and that the Trial Court should decide the matter after taking evidence from both sides.
Issues: 1. Whether a fresh sanction order for prosecution can be issued after an initial refusal of sanction. 2. Whether the sanction order was issued under pressure from the government. 3. Whether the competent authority had already refused sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. There is no provision of law that administrative orders granting sanction for prosecution cannot be reviewed subsequently. 2. The court found that the Chairman of the Board of Indian Medicine, who issued the fresh sanction order, was not influenced by the government's letter requesting a review of the matter. 3. The court found that the Registrar of the Board of Indian Medicine, who had initially refused sanction, was not the competent authority to do so.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments and that interference by the High Court under Article 226 or inherent powers under Article 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted.
JUDGMENT
1. - Petitioner, while working as Office Superintendent in the office of Registrar, Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, Jaipur, was involved in a trap case of anti corruption in the year 1993. It has been alleged that on 14.7.1993 a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was found in the drawer of the petitioner which he received as bribe from one Mr. Gurujant Singh Man, a resident of Village Makka Saharna, district Ganganagar for his permanent registration as a 'A Class Ayurvedic Chikitsaka'. During the trap proceedings statements of the other employees were also recorded and even the sample of hand wash was also taken. Pink Colour of Pinolpthlene powder was found in the hand wash of the petitioner for which no satisfactory explanation was given by him at the time of incident.
2. A sanction was sought by the State Bureau of Investigation for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act. Initially the sanction was refused by the Registrar, Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan Jaipur vide his letter dated 3.1.1994. Subsequently, on reconsideration of the matter it was found by the State Government that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, proper sanction for prosecution should have been granted and the same was accorded vide order dated 6.5.1995.
3. The petitioner filed the present writ petition initially challenging the order dated 6.5.1995. This Court, while issuing notices on 17.7.1995 stayed the operation of the order dated 6.5.1995 vide order dated 17.7.1995. However, the same was vacated vide order dated 8.7.1996.
4. Subsequently, when it was found that the State Government was not a competent authority to issue such sanction, the matter was referred to the Board for issuing fresh sanction in accordance with law vide letter dated 17.9.1997 written by the Deputy Secretary, Medical & Health (Group IV) Ayurved Department, Jaipur. After considering the whole matter fresh sanction Was issued by the Chairman, Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dated 19.9.1997. After amendment in the writ petition, both the letter dated 17.9.1997 issued by Deputy Secretary and order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Board are now under challenge in the present writ petition.
5. Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner with all vehemence at his command submitted that once the sanction already having been refused in the present case, in absence of any provision of review, the State Government or even the competent authority could not have issued a fresh sanction order. He has further contended that earlier the competent authority i.e. Registrar of the respondent-Board had refused to accord sanction. However, on 6.5.1995 the sanction order was issued by the State Government who was not the employer of the petitioner. Further, when it was found that the State Government could not have issued sanction in the present matter, the same was referred to the respondent-Board again vide letter dated 17.9.1997. Thus, the sanction issued by the Chairman of the respondent-Board on 19.9.1997 cannot be treate as an independent decision because the same has been passed at the behest of the Government under pressure. Mr. Joshi has relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court and also some other High Courts.
6. Mr. Avasthi, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that after due sanction has already been accorded by the Competent Authority, the challan has already been filed before the Trial Court and the charges also have already been framed against the petitioner in the present case.
7. After having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and also the judgments cited at Bar.
8. There is no dispute that granting sanction in such matters is purely an administrative order. It is also a settled proposition of law that opportunity of hearing or even principles of natural justice are no
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
