Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

1. This instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed your lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept this Misc. Petition and the FIR No. 336/2010 dated 28/10/2010 (Annexure-1) registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur District Chowki A.C.B. Kota for the offence under Sections 8, 10, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Under Section 120-B I.P.C. qua accused petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 10/2/2017 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota taking cognizance Under Section 120-B IPC and Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) or 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. qua petitioner at the time of framing of the charges against those persons against whom, challan was filed without the sanction of the Govt. and directing the Supdt. of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kota to produce the sanction after obtaining the same in Sessions Case No. 21/2015 may also kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against seventeen (17) persons including the present accused-petitioner on suspicion that some mischief has been committed by them in the matter of the allotment of the houses by the Rajasthan Housing Board under various schemes by way of lotteries. An FIR No.336/2010 was registered on 28.10.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 10, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’)and Section 120-B of IPC.

3. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency out of seventeen (17) persons submitted the charge-sheet only against two persons, and against rest of fifteen (15) persons, including the present petitioner, the final negative report was submitted. The Investigating Agency on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation came to the conclusion that the accused-petitioner was not found to have been involved in the commission of the alleged offence.

4. On submission of the final report i.e. charge-sheet against two accused persons and the final negative report as regards fifteen (15) other persons including the present petitioner, the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota vide order dated 31.08.2015 took cognizance against Anuj Mathur & Mukesh Gupta for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 10, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and Section 120-B of IPC.

5. The matter came up for hearing on the issue of framing of charge against the accused namely; Mukesh Gupta & Anuj Mathur, against whom the Police submitted the charge-sheet and the cognizance was taken. The Court of learned Special Judge, Sessions Court Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota while framing charge against the accused namely; Mukesh Gupta & Anuj Mathur vide order dated 10.02.2017 also took cognizance against the present accused petitioner for offences punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) or 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120-B of IPC and further ordered to submit the prosecution sanction against the accused-petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2017, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Sessions Court Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota (Raj.) the petitioner has preferred this present criminal misc. petition.

7. One of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once on a report is submitted by the Police and the Competent Court has taken cognizance on the same then no subsequent order of taking cognizance can be passed by the Court. Counsel further submits that the cognizance on the report submitted by the Police can only be taken once, however, in the present case in