The competent authority's role in granting prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is to assess prima-facie involvement, not to determine guilt.

Order

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.04.2024, whereby prosecution sanction against her as required under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) have been granted.

2. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that the trap which was laid for apprehending the petitioner was irregular inasmuch as the purported middle man namely Monu was firstly caught red-handed and the same packet/ currency notes recovered from him were asked to be handed over to the petitioner.

3. He submitted that the petitioner might have bonafidely or inadvertently taken the packet, but there is no material available which could establish her nexus with said Monu so as to implicate her for accepting bribe.

4. Moving on to the order dated 02.04.2024, learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the letter dated 27.09.2023 written by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan and highlighted that as per said communication, if the competent authority wanted to discuss or seek any clarification, the same could be sought from the investigating officer.

5. It was also pointed out that the communication dated 27.09.2023 was accompanied by a draft of prosecution santion and on that count also, the prosecution sanction deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge-sheet was filed by one Sachin, the Dy. Superintendent of Police whereas, the person who appeared before the competent authority during the proceedings for granting prosecution sanction was one Raghuveer Sharma – Police Inspector and not the investigating officer (Sachin) himself.

7. Learned counsel argued that the entire impugned order is based upon the version of said Raghuveer Sharma, who was not the investigating officer and therefore, the prosecution sanction is vitiated.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

9. So far as petitioner’s contention regarding irregular trap proceedings is concerned, the same is in the realm of trial and cannot be examined by the competent authority who is supposed to grant prosecution sanction or by this Court in the present petition. The competent authority while granting prosecution sanction under Section 17A of the Act of 1988 is required to see the prima-facie material pointing towards involvement of the public servant.

10. On perusal of the order dated 02.04.2024, this Court finds that the competent authority has carefully examined not only the record but also the transcript of the recording.

11. Maybe, the person who had appeared before the competent authority-Raghuveer Sharma was not the investigating officer but according to this Court that hardly makes any difference. What is enjoined upon the competent authority is to see the record and satisfy himself about the involvement of a government employee. The competent authority is not supposed to record its finding about guilt or innocence.

12. On perusal of the record, the competent authority founds that the packet was handed over to the petitioner and her hands also got tainted (pink) on account of phenolphthalein powder on the packet.

13. Adverting to Mr. Maheshwari’s contention that the letter dated 27.09.2023 sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police was accompanied by a performa of the prosecution sanction, this Court is of the view that since performa of the prosecution sanction has not been placed on record, it is very difficult to hold that the prosecution sanction is exactly in the same as had been suggested by the Dy. Inspector General of Police along with his communication dated 27.09.2023.

14. According to this Court, the grant of prosecution sanction is purely an administrative exercise and the same cannot be decided on the principles, which govern quasi-judicial proceedings or quasi-judicial order.

15. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, the present writ petition is dismissed.

16. Stay applicati