2013 Supreme(Raj) 1655

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Madan Lal Bunkar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Another - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1254 and 1955 of 2013.
Decided On : 23-08-2013

Headnote:

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITIONS - QUASHING OF F.I.R. AND PROSECUTION SANCTION - SANCTION OF PROSECUTION - GRANT OR REFUSAL - NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION - MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY - PRIMA FACIE DISCLOSES COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE - SANCTION TO BE GRANTED - NO INQUIRY TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO DECIDE TRUTH OF ALLEGATIONS - GUIDELINES FRAMED BY CVC - IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, while working as officiating Vikash Adhikari and Junior Engineer at Panchayat Samiti Keshoraipatan, Bundi, in the year 2002-2003, in relation to work of hand-pumps undertaken during drought for their installation and repairs, an enquiry was conducted by the Director Accounts Department on the basis of audit report. On that basis the Development Officer lodged an F.I.R. No. 242/2005 dated 30.7.2005 under Sections 420, 409, 406 and 120-B I.P.C. But in that F.I.R. final report was given by the Investigating Officer on account of territorial jurisdiction and matter was sent to the Anti Corruption Department (in short ACD). The ACD after preliminary enquiry registered the Case No. 81/2009. It has been alleged in the petitions that a tender notice was issued by the Development Officer and accordingly M/s. Vinayak Traders was the lowest tenderer given the contract. However, the said M/s. Vinayak Trader failed to undertake the work despite repeated reminders given to him on account of scarcity of drinking water and immediate setting up of Handpumps, the Administrative Committee of the Panchayat Samiti called a meeting on 1.3.2002. Chairperson Pradhan presided over the meeting and one person namely Pradeep Singh gave the proposal that looking to the default of M/s. Vinayak Traders, the work should be assigned to others on the same rates so that relief can be given to the people looking to the acute drought in the area. The Standing Committee consists of 5 members had taken a decision to get the work done through others on the lowest rate accepted in favour, of M/s. Vinayak Traders. The work was assigned to Ms. Kuber Marketing and thereafter it was found that the officials in connivance with M/s. Kuber Marketing Kota misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,32,054.47/-. After proper enquiry F.I.R. No. 286 of 2009 was registered as mentioned above. On the basis of material available on record and on going through the material the Director Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner vide order dated 18.3.2013 issued prosecution sanction against the accused-petitioner Madan Lai Bunkar. Similarly on the basis of material available on record and going through the material Secretary to the Government and Commissioner Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan Jaipur granted prosecution sanction against the accused-petitioner Ramhans Meena. The F.I.R. and the prosecution sanctions against the accused-petitioners have been challenged in both the criminal misc. petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The F.I.R. and the prosecution sanctions issued by the appropriate authorities clearly indicate misappropriation of Government funds. The F.I.R. and the prosecution of sanction have been rightly issued by the appropriate authorities for proceeding against the accused-petitioners in accordance with law. The allegations made in the F.I.R., do clearly constitute a cognizable offence and this case does not call for the exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. and the prosecution sanction granted by the appropriate authorities after carefully examine the material available on record. When the offences and the ingredients therein are prima facie disclosed in the F.I.R., there is no reason to quash the F.I.R. at this stage. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discretionary in nature and could not be exercised in favour of the accused-petitioners particularly when the prosecution sanctions have been granted by the appropriate authorities after evaluating the material produced before them.

Issues: Whether the F.I.R. and the prosecution sanctions issued by the appropriate authorities were valid and justified?

Ratio Decidendi: The grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution is not a quasi judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail appropriate legal remedy.

Final Decision: The criminal misc. petitions being devoid of merit stand rejected. The stav applications also stand rejected.