IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sudesh Bansal, J.
Chetram S/o Arjunlal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4934 of 2020
Decided On : 28-02-2024
Refusal of Prosecution Sanction - Prevention of Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)) & Section 120-B IPC - Section 169 Cr.PC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public servant, was accused of demanding a bribe for granting permission to open a milk collection center. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) sought prosecution sanction, which was twice refused by the Alwar Dairy. The Special Judge dismissed the ACB's application under Section 169 Cr.PC and directed further investigation into the role of the Chairman of the Alwar Dairy and reconsideration of the refusal of prosecution sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The Special Judge had the jurisdiction to issue directions for further investigation and reconsideration of the refusal of prosecution sanction. The refusal of prosecution sanction by the Alwar Dairy required re-consideration by the Reviewing Authority. The ACB's failure to challenge the order indicated its agreement with the directions of the Special Judge.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Special Judge acted within its jurisdiction in issuing directions for further investigation and reconsideration of the refusal of prosecution sanction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and such powers can be exercised suo moto as well. The refusal of prosecution sanction by the Alwar Dairy required re-consideration by the Reviewing Authority. The ACB's failure to challenge the order indicated its agreement with the directions of the Special Judge.
Final Decision: The criminal misc. petition was dismissed, affirming the order of the Special Judge. The interim stay order was vacated, and pending applications were disposed of. The judgment was forwarded to the Anti Corruption Bureau to proceed further in the matter.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, petitioner-accused has prayed to quash the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar, dismissing an application filed by Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter for short “ACB”) under Section 169 Cr.PC, in connection with FIR No.248/2016 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short “the PC Act”) & Section 120-B IPC, and has prayed to grant the application, allowing to discharge/release the petitioner-accused in the present criminal case, on the ground of refusal of prosecution sanction.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner-Mr. Manish Gupta, strenuously contended that as per Section 19 of the PC Act, previous sanction for prosecution of a public servant, for the charges of corruption, is mandatory. Petitioner is indisputably a public servant and the application filed by ACB for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner has been rejected by a competent Authority. Learned counsel pointed out that the Managing Director, Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited (hereinafter for short “the Alwar Dairy”), vide letter dated 19.11.2016 and again vide letter dated 08.12.2017, has forwarded a decision of the Board of Directors, declining to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner, therefore, his contention is that the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the charges of corruption and cannot be prosecuted in connection with the aforesaid FIR.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that an application under Section 169 Cr.PC was moved by the ACB before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, to release the petitioner, due to refusal to grant prosecution sanction by the dairy federation, Alwar, whereupon, the Special Judge had no option except to allow the application. Learned counsel submits that the Special Judge erred in dismissing the application under Section 169 Cr.PC and issuing directions suo moto, to place the application for reconsideration of the refusal to grant prosecution sanction, before the higher Authority/Reviewing Authority afresh, so also to initiate further investigation in the matter.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner vociferously contended that such exercise of jurisdiction by the Special Judge, is wholly uncalled for as much as without jurisdiction, hence the impugned order is absolutely against the settled mandate of law, as such needs to be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC and simultaneously, the application filed by the ACB under Section 169 Cr.PC, deserves to be allowed.
To buttress his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:-
(i) Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 3 SCC 306];
(ii) Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal [(2009) 9 SCC 129];
(iii) Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Vs. Sumanbahi Patel [(2017) 4 SCC 177];
(iv) Krishna Pati Tripathi Vs. State of M.P.; Writ Petition No.29159/2022 decided on 21.04.2023; and
(v) Prahlad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan: SB Criminal Revision No.146/2016 decided on 06.12.2018.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State so also for ACB, prayed to pass just and proper order as this Court deems necessary to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. However, learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the impugned order was passed, dismissing the application filed by the ACB under Section 169 CrPC, but the ACB has not come forward to challenge the impugned order before the High Court, in order to pursue its application.
6. Heard. Considered.
7. Briefly stated facts of the present case as culled out from the record are that:
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana
Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Vs. Sumanbahi Patel
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat
Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak
The Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and such powers can be exercised suo moto as well.
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
Grant or refusal of sanction for prosecution is not an empty formality – Act of according sanction for prosecution must be preceded by proper application of mind by competent authority.
Point of Law : Since such a direction takes away the power of the sanctioning authority to take an independent position after applying, its mind upon the material and evidence collected as to whether....
Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction must be accorded by the Competent Authority as per Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the material collected for on....
The judgment established that the absence of sanction can be raised at the inception and at the threshold as it goes to the root of the matter. It also emphasized that the validity or illegality of t....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.