HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 39/2020

Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Satya Narayan Sharma, Aged

About 50 Years, R/o Plot No 125/5 Gangadhar Rao Ki Gali, Getor

Road, Brahampuri, Jaipur, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Finance Department Through Its

Additional Chief Secretary Secretariat Jaipur

2.

The State Of Raj., Department Of Personnel Through Its

Additonal Chief Secretary, Secretariat Jaipur

3.

The Director, Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts, Raj.,

Vitt Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur

4.

The Additional Director (Personnel-II), Directorate Of

Treasury And Accounts, Raj., Vitt Bhawna, Janpath, Jaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Nikhil Simlote for

Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with

Mr. Ashish Yadav, Dy. GC

Mr. V.S. Badaya

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

11/05/2022

Petitioner is accused in FIR No.96/2014 registered for

offence(s) under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as for offence(s)

under Sections 409, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

The petitioner has challenged the order of sanction for

prosecution dated 17.12.2019 at Annexure-29. The challenge is

on the ground that the same suffers from non-application of

independent and free mind and any sanction order granted in

(2 of 4)

[CRLW-39/2020]

perfunctory manner under dictate of some other authority would

vitiate the sanction order itself.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this

Court in Kan Singh Parihar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

dated 20.07.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12983/2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents contends that sanction

order is well discussed order. It is not a case that dotted space of

a printed format of sanction order was filled in by the Sanctioning

Authority deciphering name of the accused, offences for which

sanction was accorded etc. etc. rather the Sanctioning Authority

has referred in details the allegation and material against the

petitioner and reasoned in para 7 & 8 of the sanction order after

going through the material collected during investigation and after

discussion with the Investigating Officer probably on the

documents and evidences collected during the investigation.

Hence, it cannot be argued that the Sanctioning Authority has

acted in a casual and lethargic manner or was influenced by any

extraneous consideration.

The sanction order reveals that the petitioner was posted as

a Junior Accountant from 22.12.2011 to 03.10.2013 in Pension

section in the office of Treasury and Accounts, Jaipur. During the

said period, for recharge of the internet in different bank

branches, the petitioner is alleged to have made payment of cash

whereas on verification, it surfaced that payment was of

Rs.2,317/- through cheque of the Government money and later

on, Mr. Anil Pareek deducted Rs.1,299/- for data card and the

remaining amount of Rs.1,018/- was transferred to personal

account of the petitioner. Other identical allegations are there. The

Sanctioning Authority has recorded as follows :-

(3 of 4)

[CRLW-39/2020]

Þ7- esjs }kjk vfHk;ksx la- 96@14 dh vuqla/kku i=koyh esa vuqla/kku ds

nkSjku ladfyr nLrkosth lk{;] xokgku ds c;ku vkfn dk Hkyh Hkkarh

v/;;u fd;k x;k ,oa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj foe’kZ fd;k x;kA

ckn voyksdu i=koyh ,oa fopkj&foe’kZ ls eSa iw.kZr;k lUrq"V gw¡ fd

Jh ujsUnz dqekj 'kekZ iq= Jh lR;ukjk;.k 'kekZ] edku uEcj 125@5]

xaxk?kj jko dh xyh xsVksj jksM+ czgeiqjh t;iqj rRdkyhu dfu"B

ys[kkdkj] dk;kZy; dks"kkf/kdkjh isa’ku] t;iqj us vius futh fgr ds

fy, MsVk fjpktZ ds uke ls cSadksa ls QthZ fcy is’k dj Hkqxrku izkIr

djus dk vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 13 ¼1½ ¼lh½ ¼M+h½ lifBr 13 ¼2½

ihlh,DV 1988 ,oa /kkjk 409] 467] 468] 471 Hkknl dk izekf.kr ik;k

x;k gSA

8- eSa funs’kd] dks"k ,oa ys[kk t;iqj Jh ujsUnz dqekj 'kekZ iq= Jh

l