The court affirmed that a trial court can take cognizance of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on available evidence, even in the absence of prosecution sanction at that stage.

ORDER :

Ashok Kumar Jain, J.

1. Instant criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-accused aggrieved from order dated 17.07.2023 in Criminal Case No. 22/2022 arising out of FIR No. 225/2021 P.S. ACB, Jaipur wherein, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against Ravi Meena and Amit Sharma under Section 7-A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended) Act, 2018 and directed for further investigation.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submitted that after receipt of complaint for demand and also verification of the same a case was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred as ACB) but after investigation a negative final report (closure report) was submitted by the ACB, wherein nothing was found against petitioner. He further submitted that during pendency of this final closure report, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 7-A and 8 without considering that there was no prosecution sanction to prosecute present petitioner. He also submitted that the Trial Court was impressed upon that no cognizance can be possible in wake of the bar under Section 19 of P.C. Act but while passing the order dated 17.07.2023, it has ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of P.C. Act. He also submitted that as per facts narrated in the complaint the case under Section 7(c) was considered by the ACB before closing the investigation but herein the Trial Court has not considered that for the prosecution of any public servant, a prosecution sanction is required, therefore, in absence of a prosecution sanction, the order of cognizance is bad in eye of law. He submitted that not enough material was available on record to take cognizance against the petitioner, therefore, the order of cognizance against the petitioner was bad in the eyes of law. He also submitted that in same order, cognizance was taken and further investigation was also ordered, which is contrary to law.

3. Learned counsel further submitted a written submission wherein also, he referred to the duty of the Magistrate before taking cognizance in any matter. He specifically referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 705, L. Narayan Swami Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 598, State through CBI Vs. Hemendra Reddy & Anr. 2023 SCC Online SC 515 in support of his contentions. He also referred Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala Ram (1978) 4 SCC 58, Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. State of Karnataka 2021 SCC Online SC 1140, State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2014) 3 SCC 659 on the point of cognizance by the Court below. He also referred to the judgment in cases of Shashikant Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 565/2022, Nimba Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5514/2021, Hari Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3532/2016, Brijesh Mangal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2409/2019 and Tejvir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1703/2017 in support of his contentions.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He also submitted that on the basis of material available on record, the Trial Court was competent to take cognizance in the instant matter.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, perused the material available on record, also considered the written submissions and perused the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. A perusal of the record indicates that the Trial Court on the basis of material on record has proceed to take cognizance against present petitioner under Section 7-A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The Trial Court after noticing a detailed conversation on basis of the transcript concluded that Rs.3,00,000/- was meant to be delivered to Prateek Jhajaria. In the instant c