Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Kesar Singh S/o Shri Gouru Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 731 of 2024
Decided On : 06-12-2024
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by Kesar Singh, who was the Sarpanch at the relevant time, against charges framed under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code (!) .
The charges against the petitioner included misappropriation of public funds, forging documents, and related offences. The investigation revealed that the alleged Jal Grahan Koop was constructed and used as a tubewell, and the petitioner had deposited recovery amounts in pursuance of a recovery order (!) (!) .
The main legal issue pertains to whether prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was necessary for prosecuting the petitioner, who was a public servant (Sarpanch) at the relevant time (!) (!) .
It was established that the petitioner, being a Sarpanch, qualifies as a public servant under relevant laws, and therefore, the requirement of obtaining prior sanction for prosecution applies (!) .
The court emphasized that prior sanction is mandatory before proceeding with charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and for offences committed while acting in official capacity, especially when the acts are directly connected to official duties (!) (!) .
The court reviewed the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of Cr.P.C., clarifying that no court can take cognizance of offences against a public servant acting in official capacity without prior sanction from the competent authority (State or Central Government) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the investigation and the challan did not demonstrate that prior sanction was obtained before filing charges against the petitioner. Consequently, the charges framed against the petitioner without such sanction are invalid (!) .
As a result, the court held that the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioner without the necessary sanction, and therefore, the charges under the specified sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC are quashed and set aside for petitioner no. 1 (!) .
The revision petition was dismissed with respect to other petitioners, but the specific relief was granted only to petitioner no. 1, emphasizing the importance of prior sanction in such cases (!) .
The stay petition filed in connection with this case was also disposed of accordingly (!) .
In summary, the legal significance of this case revolves around the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior sanction before prosecuting a public servant for offences related to corruption and misconduct committed in official capacity. The absence of such sanction renders the charges invalid and warrants their quashing.
ORDER :
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.04.2024 & 02.05.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Bikaner whereby, the trial court framed charges against the petitioners No. 1 to 3 for offences under Sections 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) and Section 409, 467 IPC and against petitioner No. 4 for offence under Section 120B IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant one Narpat Singh submitted a complaint before ACB, Jaipur alleging illegality and misappropriation of public fund in the development work conducted in Gram panchayat, Rajiyasar. It was alleged that no construction work of Jal Grahan Koop was made in the Gram panchayat but the accused persons in connivance forged the record and misappropriated huge sum of money.
3. After usual investigation, the Anti Corruption Bureau filed a challan against accused persons for offence under Sections 13(1) (c)(d), 13(2) of PC Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. Thereafter, arguments upon charge were heard and by way of impugned orders dated 24.04.2024 and 02.05.2024, charges were framed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw the criminal revision to the extent of petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed qua petitioners No. 2 Bhanwar Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, petitioner No. 3 Mohan Lal Jat S/o Kana Ram and petitioner No. 4 Rajendra Singh S/o Kesar Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 Kesar Singh submits that on perusal of FIR as well as the challan papers, there is no evidence whatsoever to frame charges against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. It is argued that upon inquiry, it was found that Jal Grahan Koop was in fact constructed but it was being used as a tubewell due to shortage of water. It is further argued that although the petitioners have not misappropriated any public fund but in pursuance of recovery order dated 13.06.2019 issued by the District Collector, Churu, the petitioners no. 1 to 3 have deposited the recovery amount of Rs. 1,69,950/-. It is further argued that the petitioners have not prepared any forged documents nor cheated anyone, therefore, no offence under Sections 409, 467 and 120B IPC is made out against them. Lastly it is argued that so far as the petitioner no. 1 Kesar Singh is concerned, he was the Sarpanch at the relevant time, and shall be deemed to be a public servant and therefore, he could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and charges could not be framed against him. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned orders framing charges against the petitioner No. 1 Kesar Singh is liable to be set aside. The counsel placed reliance on the judgments passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aadram Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3408/2017) decided on 25.05.2018, Gurnaam Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 Supreme (Raj.) 250, Prabhu Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Supreme (Raj.) 523, Mangilal Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Supreme (Raj.) 730, Pukhraj Vs. Ummaidram and Others, AIR 1964 Rajasthan 174.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and argued that the ACB after thorough investigation submitted challan against the petitioner no. 1 Kesar Singh and the trial court after going through the entire record, has framed charges against the petitioners. It is argued that there is serious allegation against the present petitioner No. 1 Kesar Singh for misappropriating public funds and receiving money, therefore, the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropri
Prior sanction is mandatory for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C.
Public servant needs protection from prosecution under IPC only if acts are connected to official duties; lack of nexus and undue delay infringes the right to a speedy trial.
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....
Cognizance of offences against public servants requires prior government sanction under Sections 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 197 of the Cr.P.C., even if the acts are alleged to be done....
Illegal gratification - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution - Granted sanction for prosecution not maintainable - Section 19 of P.C. Act empowers sanctioning authority to protect innocent pub....
The court found that no sanction was required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the offences charged against the petitioner.
Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service – It is restricted to only those ac....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
