Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2833
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Babu Lal Vishnoi – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2072/2018
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Mr. Sukhesh Bhati, for the Appellant; Mr. Bheem Kant Vyas, for the Respondent.
The authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution is required to exercise its own mind by considering all relevant facts and the sanction must demonstrate proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.
Headnote:
Prosecution Sanction - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13(1) (d), 13 (2) - [Section 19 of PC Act, 1988] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which ensures that a public servant does not suffer harassment on account of false and frivolous complaints. It makes it incumbent upon the competent authority to record reasons by applying independent mind while granting sanction to prosecute a public servant. The court highlighted that the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution is required to exercise its own mind by considering all relevant facts and that the sanction must demonstrate proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. The court found that the Managing Director granted prosecution sanction without any application of mind, which is contrary to the requirement and object of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. The court declared the sanction granted for prosecution as illegal and quashed it, giving the competent authority liberty to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 7, 13(1) (d), 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was suspended, and a draft sanction letter was received from the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jaipur. The petitioner filed a writ petition, arguing that the grant of prosecution sanction was not in adherence to the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Managing Director granted prosecution sanction without any application of mind, which is contrary to the requirement and object of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. The court declared the sanction granted for prosecution as illegal and quashed it, giving the competent authority liberty to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner adhered to the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution is required to exercise its own mind by considering all relevant facts and that the sanction must demonstrate proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.
Final Decision: The court declared the sanction granted for prosecution as illegal and quashed it, giving the competent authority liberty to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with the law.
ORDER
1. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.258/2016 was lodged against the petitioner on 23.09.2016 under Section 7, 13(1) (d), 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988 by the Anti Corruption Bureau while he was working as Dairy Supervisor in Uttari Rajasthan Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Limited, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ’Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner’). As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was suspended by the Managing Director of the Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner vide order dated 03.10.2016. The Managing Director, Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner vide order dated 14.09.2017 received a draft sanction letter from Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jaipur requesting him to convey prosecution sanction against petitioner as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ’PC Act, 1988’). The Managing Director upon receiving the request for according prosecution sanction against the petitioner, vide letter dated 12.10.2017, requested the Managing Director, Sikar/Jhunjhunu Zila Dugh Uttpadan Sahakari Sangh Limited Palsana (Sikar) to submit a factual report of the incident leading to filing of FIR No.258/2016. However, before a factual report could be submitted, the Managing Director, Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner vide communication dated 27.11.2017 conveyed the Anti Corruption Bureau Jaipur grant of prosecution sanction against petitioner in terms of the draft sent by the Bureau.
2. Being aggrieved by the grant of prosecution sanction, vide letter/communication dated 27.11.2017, present writ petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 19 of PC Act, 1988 a prosecution sanction is to be mandatorily granted by application of mind by the competent authority, but in the instant matter, the Managing Director, Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner had acted solely on the basis of draft sanction letter sent by the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Jaipur on 14.09.2017. It was submitted that a bare perusal of the draft for prosecution sanction dated 14.09.2017 and letter granting prosecution sanction dated 27.11.2017 would reveal that sanction in the present case has been granted without adhering to the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. Learned counsel submitted that the failure on the part of Managing Director, Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner to record reasons after independent application of mind to the facts of the case, vitiates the grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner. For strengthening the aforesaid contentions, counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273.
2. Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. CWP No.1138/2018)
3. Munish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. CWP No.7156/2007).
4. Abdul Aziz Gauri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. SAW No.1231/2014).
5. Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. CWP No.12684/2012).
4. Counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner counsel however, was not in a position to dispute the fact that the sanction order is verbatim reproduction of draft sanction proposed ACB/Investigating Officer.
5. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under:-
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013(1 ot 2014)-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any o
