This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4th Feb. 2014 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases) No.1 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby it has consigned the file to record till the sanction for prosecution is received in complaint No. 9/14 Smt. Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora and others.

2. Brief facts of this case are that on 9.11.2013, the complainant Manju Surana, who is petitioner herein filed a complaint in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases) No.1 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur for offence under sections 7, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120 B IPC against the respondents 2 to 9 herein. The complaint was with regard to (i) Barmer Lift Project, (ii) Barmer Lift Project, (iii) Pokaran Palsood Project, (iv) Manaklao – Dantiwara Project and (v) Ummed Sagar _ Dhawa Samdari Part III Project. It is alleged in the revision petition that the higher officials of the State had colluded with each other with a view to give undue benefit to P.S.L. Company to the tune of Rs. 646 crores and thereby causing loss to the exchequer of the State of Rajasthan. On 20.1.2014 the court below heard the arguments on the complaint. The aforesaid case came up for hearing before the court below on 4.2.2014 and the court below consigned the case to record on the ground that prosecution sanction has not been granted and only after submission of the prosecution sanction the case has been directed to be reopened. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2014 the complainant has filed this revision petition with the following prayer :

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this revision petition and direct the learned lower court of Special Judge (prevention of Corruption Cases) No.1 Jaipur Maha Nagar, Jaipur to forward the complaint to A.C.D. Police Station, Jaipur for conducting investigation in the above matter being case No. 9 of 2014 without insisting on prosecution sanction at this stage.”

3. Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order of the court below is patently illegal and erroneous. The court below has wrongly passed the order that prosecution is required against the Government employees while in this case there are private individuals also as against whom the case cannot be kept pending awaiting grant of prosecution sanction and the case should have been proceeded with against the private person. The court below has failed to appreciate that in the instant matter even FIR has not been lodged and as such investigation has also not commenced. Unless a case is made out on the basis of the outcome of the investigation no prosecution sanction can be required even against the Government officials. The court below has not taken into consideration that the complainant has filed the above complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to the A.C.D. Police Station Jaipur for investigation and unless the investigation is done and only when some case is made out then only the question of prosecution sanction arises. In these circumstances it was argued that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and direct the court below to forward the complaint to A.C.D. for conducting investigation.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The court below passed the following order on 4.2.2014:-

ifjokfn;k Jherh eatw lqjk.kk mifLFkr mlds vf/koDrk Jh fufru Hkkj)kt mifLFkrA

lquokbZ dh xr frfFk ij ifjokfn;k ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dks ifjokn ij lquk x;k Fkk vr% bl ifjizs{; esa ifjokni= dk iBu fd;k x;kA ifjokni= esa rFkkdfFkr vfHk;qDrx.k tks ukfer fd, x, gS os yksd lsod gS ;k jgs gS mu ij Hkz”Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 7] 13 o Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 ,oa 120ch ds vijk/k ds vfHkdfFkr vkjksiksa ds nks”kkjksi.k