Prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires only a prima facie satisfaction based on investigative material, not a detailed judicial adjudication or a mini-trial to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. The Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, Jaipur.

3. The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Department,

Jaipur.

4. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, Anti-Corruption

Bureau, Rajsamand, Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

ORDER

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 05/03/2026

DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 05/03/2026

FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/05/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner

assailing the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the respondent

No.3 The Director cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Department,

Jaipur, whereby prosecution sanction came to be accorded against

the petitioner in connection with FIR No.121/2023 registered at

Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, for offences under

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 10:49:50 AM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:56:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:22350] (2 of 8) [CRLW-872/2026]

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018

and Section 120-B IPC.

2. The brief factual matrix, as emanating from the record, is

that a complaint came to be lodged before the Anti Corruption

Bureau, Rajsamand by one Toliram against the petitioner and

another person namely Balwant Singh alleging therein that both

the accused persons were demanding illegal gratification in lieu of

issuance of certified copy of a lay-out plan. Acting upon the said

complaint, the Anti Corruption Bureau registered FIR No.121/2023

dated 17.05.2023 for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention

of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 along with Section 120-B

IPC and commenced investigation into the matter.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that despite submission of

explanation and representation before the competent authority,

the respondent-authority, without independently considering the

material available on record and without proper application of

mind, accorded prosecution sanction against the petitioner vide

order dated 23.08.2024 in a cursory and mechanical manner. It

has further been contended that the impugned sanction order is

contrary to the circulars dated 15.05.2012 and 16.05.2016 issued

by the State Government governing grant of sanction in anti-

corruption matters, which mandate due application of mind and

consideration of the entire factual matrix before sanctioning

prosecution. Hence, the present writ petition.

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 10:49:50 AM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:56:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:22350] (3 of 8) [CRLW-872/2026]

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

have carefully perused the impugned sanction order as well as the

material available on record.

4. The principal challenge raised by the petitioner revolves

around the alleged absence of independent application of mind on

the part of the competent authority while according prosecution

sanction. According to the petitioner, the sanction order is merely

mechanical in nature and has been passed without proper

consideration of the defence and explanation furnished by him.

The submission, however, does not commend acceptance in the

facts and circumstances obtaining in the present matter.

4.1. It is by now a settled and well crystallized proposition of

criminal jurisprudence that grant of prosecution sanction under

the Prevention of Corruption Act is neither a ceremonial exercise

nor an adjudicatory determination upon guilt of the accused public

servant. The object underlying sanction is to provide a statutory

safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution while

simultan