Judgment

09/07/2021 The complainant petitioner Shanker Gurjar has approached this Court through this revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for assailing the order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur in connection with FIR No.148/2004 registered at ACB Outpost Udaipur and the Negative Final Report No.91/2005 filed by the ACB after investigation of the said FIR.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order.

It is noteworthy that the petitioner filed the FIR against the respondents who were officially working in the Excise Department at the relevant point of time. The FIR was filed regarding alleged criminal misconduct of these Excise Officers while discharging their official duties. The investigating officer did not find the allegations of the petitioner complainant substantiated after thorough investigation and accordingly, a negative Final Report was chalked out and was submitted in the trial court. As the allegations against the Excise officials was of indulging in alleged criminal misconduct while discharging their official duties, manifestly, their prosecution could not have been allowed without mandatory sanction required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is available on the record of the case, copy of the communication dated 30.11.2009 and 07.12.2010 as per which, the State Government turned down the prayer for grant of sanction against the Excise officials. The petitioner earlier approached this Court through a Misc. Petition (2450/2012) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking compliance of the order dated 06.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur whereby, the prosecuting agency was directed to make efforts for prosecution sanction against the erring officials However, the petitioner’s counsel withdrew the said petition on 03.03.2014 seeking liberty that the petitioner would be challenging the order passed by the State Government whereby, sanction to prosecute the respondents was refused. However, the petitioner made no efforts to carry the proceedings further in that direction. It is an admitted position that prosecution of a Government Servant for alleged misconduct committed while discharging official duties cannot be allowed without sanction of the competent authority as mandated by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There being no valid sanction on the record so as to allow prosecution of the respondents herein, apparently, the trial court was absolutely justified in accepting the negative Final Report submitted by the ACB after thorough investigation of the case. Thus, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur warranting interference therein.

As a consequence of the above discussion, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

25-Tikam/-