The sanctioning authority must provide reasons and demonstrate due application of mind when granting prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS with a challenge to quash and set aside the impugned order of prosecution sanction dated 09.10.2023 by which sanction to prosecute the accused-petitioner has been granted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B IPC in connection with FIR No.311/2022 registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur on 05.08.2022.

2. The basic submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while issuing the prosecution sanction vide order dated 09.10.2023, the authority concerned has not made the order with his due application of mind. He further submits that the concerned authority has issued the order of prosecution sanction merely by relying upon the conclusion/version of the Investigating Agency without citing any reasons for acceptance or non-acceptance of the view of the Investigating Officer. He further submits that it was obligatory upon the Sanctioning Authority to give out the reasons either for accepting the conclusion of the Investigating Agency or not accepting the same. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan,(2007) 11 SCC 273.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the Sanctioning Authority while issuing the prosecution sanction has referred to the evidence and other material collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, which, in the Sanctioning Authority’s opinion is sufficient to prosecute the accused-petitioner. He further submits that the Sanctioning Authority was not required to give its observations and findings as regards the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency because the same may affect the further proceedings.

4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the impugned order dated09.10.2023 issued by the Sanctioning Authority.

5. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint of one Omprakash Sharma as regards an allegation of demand of bribe, verification is said to have been conducted and later on an FIR No.311/2022 was registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur on 05.08.2022 prior to which the petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2022. After completion of investigation, the investigation report was sent to the Competent Authority for issuance of prosecution sanction as regards the accused-petitioner who was posted as Chief Fire Officer in Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Greater.

6. The Authority concerned while issuing the prosecution sanction is said to have considered the material made available by the Investigating Officer and has also personally heard the Investigating Officer as is evident from the impugned order.

7. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides that previous sanction for prosecution of a public servant/government servant is mandatory. It has been provided under Section 19 that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction.

8. The basic object behind seeking prosecution sanction prior to taking cognizance against a public servant/government servant is that as regards the functioning of the department or office, no other department shall unnecessarily interfere in the day to day functioning of the department concerned and also to ensure that the public servant is not unnecessarily harassed by any other department or agency because it is only the concerned department where the public servant is employed, of whose basic procedures of functioning the Sanctioning Authority is aware of. Similarly, the other details pertaining to the act done by the public servant, which is alleged to be an offence by the Investigating Agency or complainant is also within the