Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rampratap Meena - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6395/2022
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 - Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 17A - Indian Penal Code - Section 120B - Quashing of FIR and trial proceedings - The accused petitioner's challenge to the FIR for alleged corruption and associated trial proceedings was upheld on grounds of lack of proper sanction and violation of statutory procedures for investigation - The prosecution sanction was deemed invalid as it was granted by the complainant, compromising the principle of 'Nemo judex in causa sua' - The court emphasized the necessity of prior approval for investigation under Section 17A of the amended Act - The court further found that the allegations under Section 354 IPC lacked sufficient evidence. (Paras 1, 7, 9, 12, 43, 44)
(B) Prosecution Sanction - The court ruled that the prosecution sanction must reflect an independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, which was absent in this case, leading to quashing of the sanction. (Paras 9, 12, 41)
(C) Right to Privacy - The interception of the accused's mobile phone was declared unlawful due to failure to demonstrate a public safety interest, infringing Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 38, 41)
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
Sanction for Prosecution Must Be Independent and Properly Considered: The court emphasized that prosecution sanctions must reflect an independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The sanction should be based on a thorough review of all relevant material, and the order must demonstrate that the authority has independently considered the evidence before granting sanction (!) (!) (!) .
Application of Mind in Sanction Orders: Sanction orders that are mere verbatim copies of draft proposals or that do not show evidence of independent scrutiny are invalid. The sanctioning authority must review all relevant documents, including FIR, statements, recovery memos, and draft charges, to ensure proper application of mind (!) (!) .
Legality of Interception and Violation of Privacy Rights: Interception of mobile communications must be justified by the existence of a public emergency or a genuine threat to public safety. Orders issued without proper adherence to procedural safeguards, including prior approval and recording of reasons, are unlawful and infringe upon the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution (!) (!) (!) .
Compliance with Statutory Procedures for Interception and Investigation: Orders for interception under the Indian Telegraph Rules and the Indian Telegraph Act are mandatory and must be issued with recorded reasons, following prescribed procedures, including review by a committee. Orders lacking such compliance are invalid (!) (!) .
Requirement of Prior Approval Under Section 17A: Any investigation into offences related to recommendations or decisions made by a public servant in the discharge of official duties requires prior approval from the competent authority. Initiating investigation without such approval renders proceedings void ab initio (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Proper Evidence for Offences: Mere recovery of alleged illicit gains or money, without proof of demand or acceptance, is insufficient to establish guilt under corruption laws. Evidence must show demand, acceptance, or direct involvement in criminal activity (!) (!) (!) .
Procedural Safeguards and Application of Law: Orders and actions taken without proper procedural compliance, particularly in the context of investigation, sanction, and interception, are liable to be quashed. The courts have consistently held that the exercise of powers must be transparent, justified, and in accordance with law (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Quashing of Proceedings in Case of Procedural Violations: When procedural requirements are not met, such as lack of prior approval, application of mind, or compliance with statutory rules, the entire proceedings, including FIR, charges, and trial, are liable to be quashed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court found that the investigation and prosecution in this case were initiated and conducted in violation of statutory procedures, lacked independent application of mind, and infringed constitutional rights. Therefore, the proceedings, including the FIR, sanction order, and trial, were quashed, and related orders for interception and surveillance were set aside.
ORDER :
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
1. Since the controversy involved in both the petitions i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6395/2022 and S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022 filed by the accused petitioner, arises out of FIR No. 252/2019 dated 22.8.2019 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7 A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short 'the amended Act of 2018') and Section 120B IPC , hence, same are being decided by this common order.
2. By filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6395/2022 under section 482 CrPC, the accused-petitioner has prayed to quash the FIR No.252/2019 dated 22.08.2019 registered with Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and also prayed to quash and set aside the trial proceedings pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, ACD No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Sessions Case No. 27/2021 (CIS No.39/2021), titled as State of Rajasthan V. Rakesh Kumar Meena in regard to FIR No. 252/2019 dated22.08.2019.
3. By filing S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 315(1)(H) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the accused-petitioner has prayed to accept and allow this writ petition and also to quash and set aside the impugned prosecution sanction order dated 06.10.2020 (Annex.2)issued by the respondent No.2.
4. The facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant Rajesh Kumar Rao, Police Inspector, Technical Branch, Anti Corruption Bureau, submitted a report, which reads as under:-
vfr- eq[; lfpo ¼x`g½ jktLFkku] t;iqj ds v}Z'kkldh; i= fnukad 04-02-2019 }kjk bl vk'k; dh lwpuk nh xbZ fd 'kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds x`g foHkkx ds xqzi& esa dk;Zjr II dkfeZdksa }kjk jktLFkku v/khuLFk iqfyl losZ ds nks"kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ls feyhHkxr dj] muls ikfjrks"k.k izkIr dj] muds i{k esa i=kofy;ksa ij fVIi.kh dh tkrh gSA :Yl 34 ds rgr vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk nf.Mr vkSj vihyh; izkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls O;fFkr nks"kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa }kjk jkT;iky egksn; ds le{k iqufoZpkj ;kfpdk nkf[ky dh tkrh gS] ftl ij x`g foHkkx dh fVIif.k;ka pkgh tkrh gSA x`g ¼xqzi& ½ ds dkfeZdksa }kjk feyhHkxr dj iqufoZpkj ;kfpdkvksa ij Bksl vk/kkj ugha gksrs gq, Hkh nks"kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ds i{k esa fVIif.k;ka vafdr dh tkrh gSA vafdr fVIif.k;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd ;g fVIif.k;ka nks"kh iqfyldfeZ;ksa }kjk fy[kh xbZ gS] uk fd x`g ¼xqzi& ½ esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa }kjk bu Hkz"V d`R;ksa esa eq[;Hkwfedk vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh jkds'k dqekj eh.kk }kjk fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA mDr lwpuk dh iqf"V ds Øe esa jkds'k dqekj eh.kk ds eksckby uacj 94142&00145 dh lh-Mh-vkj- izkIr dj fo'ys"k.k djok;k x;k rFkk xksiuh; lR;kiu fd;k x;k] ftlesa ;g ik;k x;k fd jkds'k dqekj eh.kk }kjk bl 'kk[kk esa vihy ls lacaf/kr vkus okyh i=kofy;ksa esa lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa] fo'ks"kr% v/khuLFk iqfyl lsok ds vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ds fo#) dh xbZ n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ls jkgr iznku fd;s tkus dk vk'oklu nsdj Hkz"V o voS/k lk/kuksa ls fu;fer :i ls fj'or jkf'k ,oa vU; lkexzh izkIr fd;k tkuk izdV gqvkA bl ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds eksckby dks vUrkojks/k ij fy;k tkdj lquus ls izdV gqvk fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr jkds'k dqekj eh.kk }kjk vihy djus okys lacaf/kr dkfeZdksa ls Lo;a ds fy;s rFkk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds uke ls fj'or jkf'k] 'kjkc rFkk vU; lkexzh dh fu;fer :i ls ekax dh tk jgh gS rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk dh xbZ okrkZvksa dk fooj.k i=koyh ij miyC/k djk;k x;k gSA iqfyl fujh{kd ikjley ls djok;s x;s xksiuh; lR;kiu esa Hkh izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/k izekf.kr ik;s x;sA
On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No. 252/2019 dated 22.8.2019 was registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A and 8 of the amended Act of 2018 and Section 120B IPC . After trap proceedings, the accused-petitioner was arrested.
5. After investigation the police submitted the charge- sheet against the acc
Prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted with independent application of mind; failure to comply invalidates proceedings.
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
The interception of messages under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act must demonstrate public safety or emergency; mere statutory recitation is insufficient.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to legal provisions and procedural guarantees against abuse of interference with privacy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A....
Test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search....
The court affirmed that legal interception of telephonic conversations is permissible under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act for serious offences, and justified the condonation of a 22-day de....
The court ruled that voice samples can be obtained legally if interception of telephonic conversations complies with established procedures under the Indian Telegraph Act, emphasizing the necessity o....
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....
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
