The sanctioning authority must apply its own independent mind while issuing prosecution sanction and cannot act mechanically under the compulsion of the Court.

ORDER :

Pankaj Bhandari, J.

1. Petitioners have preferred these petitions aggrieved by the prosecution sanction order dated 02.07.2013 (SB Criminal Writ Petition No. 494/2016 & SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11679/2014) and prosecution sanction order dated 02.04.2014 (SB Criminal Writ Petition No. 94/2015).

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that a raid was conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau team in Room No. 106 of Office of I.G. Registration and Stamps, Rajasthan as there was information that amount was being collected by the employees for renewal of licences of stamp vendors, Rs. 850/- was recovered from Pitamber Harwani, Rs. 1,150/- was recovered from Vishnu Lal Jaipal and Rs. 6,715/- was recovered from Jeevan Ram Choudhary, who all are petitioners in the present petitions. FIR was registered at Police Station CPS, ACB, Jaipur for offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(e)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completing the investigation the Investigating Agency i.e. ACB sought opinion from Deputy Director Prosecution-II, DOP-II, who was of the opinion that ACB would not be able to prove the guilt and only a departmental inquiry should be initiated by the Department.

3. It is contended that a departmental inquiry was initiated and the Inquiry Officer has concluded that mis-conduct is not made out, however final order has not been passed.

4. It is contended that investigating agency i.e. ACB submitted final report before the designated Court that cogent and enough evidence is not available to establish the guilt of the accused. Final report was not accepted by the Court, it was observed by the Court that there is material to proceed against the petitioners, but as there is no prosecution sanction, Court cannot take cognizance. The matter was returned for consideration with regard to prosecution sanction.

5. The Anti Corruption Bureau thereafter again submitted report that the charges are not found to be proved. It is contended that a letter was written by the ACB to the Inspector General, Registration & Stamps wherein in the last line of the factual report it was mentioned that in accordance with the Court wishes prosecution sanction be issued. It is contended that thereafter again Inquiry Officer submitted report that there is no material to hold the petitioners guilty for the charges on 13.01.2012. On 14.5.2013 a fresh letter was issued to the Inspector General, Registration and Stamps and in the last line it was mentioned that as per desire of the Court prosecution sanction be issued. A draft sanction for prosecution was supplied by the investigating agency i.e. ACB to the sanctioning authority. Prosecution sanction orders were issued by Inspector General, Registration & Stamps which are under challenge in these petitions.

6. It is contended that Anti Corruption Bureau has twice come to the conclusion that the offence cannot be established, hence, has submitted negative final report, but it is only at the instance of the Court that the prosecution sanction has been issued. It is also contended that a draft prosecution sanction was sent to the sanctioning authority which was verbatim copied in the impugned sanction order. The sanctioning authority did not apply its mind. It is contended that the sanctioning authority mechanically and in-obedience of mandamus issued by the Court has issued the prosecution sanction which cannot be considered to be valid.

7. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1997 (SC) 3400, Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9599/2009 decided by High Court on 13.12.2010, Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 153, Shiv Dutt Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Subhash Bhatia Vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 2 RLW (Raj.) 1015).

8. Counsel appearing for the Anti-Corruption Bureau has opposed the petitions. It is contended that whether sanctioning authority applied its mind