Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Ms. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing/setting aside of order of cognizance as well as summoning order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Panchkula, Haryana, in FIR No.RC0052021A0014 dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-2) registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') and Section 120-B of the IPC in case tilted as 'CBI Vs. Rohit Sharma and another', case No. PC/10/2022 registered as CNR No.HRPK-01-004807-2022, vide which the petitioner was summoned for committing offence under Section 120-B of IPC.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, whereby cognizance was taken and summoning orders were issued against the petitioner, suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the case without prior sanction under Section 19 of PC Act, which is a mandatory precondition for prosecuting a public servant for offences under the said Act. Learned senior counsel further submitted that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner solely under Section 120-B of the IPC, in the absence of any substantive offence under the Indian Penal Code being attributed to him. It was asserted that this amounts to a circumvention of the statutory bar imposed by Section 19 of the PC Act.

3. Learned senior counsel further argued that the CBI after concluding its investigation, admittedly forwarded the entire material collected during their investigation to the competent authority, namely the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBIC, for consideration of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. However, the competent authority, upon due application of mind to the entire material on record, including the complaint, transcripts, and verification report, declined to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. In support, learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to the communication annexed as Annexure P-4.

4. It was urged that once the competent authority has declined to grant sanction, the learned Trial Court could not have overridden that decision. In the absence of sanction, no cognizance could have been lawfully taken under Section 7 of the PC Act. It was argued that the learned Trial Court could not have circumvented the statutory bar by taking recourse to Section 120-B IPC.

5. Learned senior counsel still further submitted that the case of the prosecution, as per the charge sheet dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-3), was confined to an alleged conspiracy between the petitioner and co-accused Rohit Sharma, Superintendent, CGST, Rohtak to commit the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. There was no independent allegation of criminal conspiracy unconnected with PC Act. The prosecution did not even allege that the petitioner was separately liable under Section 120-B of IPC in the absence of the underlying offence under the PC Act.

6. Therefore, in the absence of cognizance being taken under Section 7 of the PC Act, due to the denial of sanction, the proceedings under Section 120-B of the IPC could not be sustained either, as the purported object of the conspiracy is legally non-triable.

7. It was still further vehemently argued that without prejudice to the above submissions, and assuming the charge sheet was to be examined on its own merits, there was no material on record to establish any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner. On the contrary, learned senior counsel referred to paragraph 16.44 of the charge sheet wherein it stood recorded that co-accused Rohit Sharma informed the complainant that the petitioner had rejected the request not to arrest the associate of the complainant and had proceeded with the arrest. This conduct, it was submitted, clearly negat