The prosecution sanction must reflect the authority's independent application of mind to all relevant materials, ensuring due process in granting prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 11.08.2023 & 21.11.2022, whereby the prosecution sanction has been granted against the petitioners.

3. Briefly, the facts noted in the present writ petition are that while the petitioners were working on the post of Sarpanch, Ward Panch and Panch, an FIR bearing No.312/2016 was registered against them under Sections 409 & 120B of IPC and under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the Investigating Agency and the same was sent to the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority for grant of prosecution sanction to proceed against the petitioners. The Prosecution Sanctioning Authority vide its orders dated 11.08.2023 (Annex.1) and 21.11.2022 (Annex.2) granted the prosecution sanction against the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the authority concerned vide letter dated 05.07.2023 had called the petitioners for personal hearing in the case. In pursuance of the letter dated 05.07.2023, the petitioners appeared before the competent authority and submitted their representations as well as made oral submissions. Learned counsel further submits that despite the petitioners having called for the personal hearing, the contentions raised by them orally and also in the representation, have not been taken note of while passing the orders dated 11.08.2023 & 21.11.2022 respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that a bare perusal of the orders dated 11.08.2023 & 21.11.2022 shows that there is no application of mind on behalf of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority, more particularly, when none of the submissions made before it has been discussed and mentioned while passing the orders. He therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the orders dated 11.08.2023 (Annex.1) & 21.11.2022 (Annex.2) may be quashed and set aside.

6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an interim order passed in the similar circumstances by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 10.05.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7171/2021: Bahadur Singh Mayda v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and also relied upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.07.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.268/2019: Satyanarayan Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned orders dated 11.08.2023 & 21.11.2022.

8. A bare perusal of the orders dated 11.08.2023 & 21.11.2022 clearly shows that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority has carefully noted the entire facts of the case and has recorded its satisfaction by mentioning that it has gone through the entire records of the case and has considered the submissions made before it while passing the orders. It is also stated that the Investigating Officer was also called on 10.07.2023 and the matter was threadbare discussed with him.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the material placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the relevant facts have been duly considered for grant of prosecution sanction in this case.

10. A perusal of the orders dated 11.08.2023 & 21.11.2022 discloses that in the present case, while granting the prosecution sanction, the Sanctioning Authority has applied its own independent mind for generation of genuine satisfaction. This Court is firmly of the view that while considering the case in hand, the contents of the FIR and investigation papers have been thoroughly noted in the present case which shows that Prosecution Sanctioning Authority has applied its mind. The Sanctioning Authority has discharged its duties by taking note of the detailed facts submitted before it as reflected in the investigation pape