Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1057 (RAJ)

Jai Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-13

M.N.BHANDARI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 24.05.2014, by which application submitted by the petitioner challenging the order for grant of sanction for prosecution was dismissed and simultaneously charges were framed for offence under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the Act of 1988"). 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was a Sepoy in the Army having no connection with the Railways or its working. He was not in a position to arrange appointment of others in the railways. In view of the above, Section 7 of the Act of 1988 does not apply so as to frame charges for offence under the said provision. The petitioner has been implicated when trap was conducted where two persons were caught. The petitioner was said to be instrument to get appointment of others in the railways but then no material exists to connect him with the crime. The offence against the petitioner is in reference to telephonic conversation with Narayan Ram but expert opinion does not exist to show voice of the petitioner therein for demand of money for appointment. In absence of it, the prosecution could not bring evidence or prima facie case against the petitioner. 3. It is also stated that sanction for prosecution has been given without application of mind. The sanction for prosecution has been granted against two accused, out of which, one is petitioner and other is Arvind. The order for both of them is same though appointing authorities of Arvind and present petitioner are different. It becomes a case of non-application of mind while granting sanction for prosecution. In view of the above, impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioner for challenge to the order of sanction for prosecution, so as framing charges, deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI contested the petition. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. It is a case where two persons namely, Bhagwanaram & Narayan Ram were caught carrying Rs. 6 lacs. It was for arranging appointment in the railways. The name of the petitioner came therein and telephonic conversation between petitioner and Narayan Ram confirmed demand of amount for arranging appointment in the railways. It shows demand of Rs. 6. It is a case where two persons namely, Bhagwanaram & Narayan Ram were caught carrying Rs. 6 lacs. It was for arranging appointment in the railways. The name of the petitioner came therein and telephonic conversation between petitioner and Narayan Ram confirmed demand of amount for arranging appointment in the railways. It shows demand of Rs. 3 lacs by the petitioner for the aforesaid. The petitioner has been implicated and charges were framed accordingly. 7. The argument has been raised in reference to Section 7 of the Act of 1988. He submits that petitioner was not employee of railways so as to apply Section 7 of the Act of 1988. He was a Sepoy in Army having no connection with the railways to arrange appointment. For ready reference, Section 7 of the Act of 1988 is quoted hereunder: "7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act-Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanations.-(a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) "Gratification." The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (b) "Gratification." The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money. (c) "Legal remuneration." The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept. (d) "A motive or reward for doing." A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression. (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section. 8. The perusal of provision quoted above shows that petitioner is covered by Section 7 of the Act of 1988. It is not necessary that to fall under Section 7 of the Act of 1988, gratification should be in relation to the work where one is employed. In view of the above, I do not find that argument in reference to Section 7 is made out. 9. It is also stated that petitioner was not in railways service, thus was not in a position to arrange for appointment. The allegation against the accused is to get money for arranging appointment in railways. The allegation is not that they were competent to arrange appointment but demand of gratification for arranging appointment in railways. 10. The challenge to the order for sanction for prosecution has been made. It is mainly on the ground of non-application of mind. The order for sanction of prosecution against petitioner and Arvind is verbatim same. The allegation of the petitioner is not that order for sanction of prosecution was not passed by the competent authority, as given under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 but in reference to two different public servants posted under different employers. So far as petitioner is concerned, order has been passed by the competent authority and if it was applied on Arvind also, the issue can be challenged by Arvind but this ground is not available to the petitioner for it. So far as petitioner is concerned, order has been passed by the competent authority and if it was applied on Arvind also, the issue can be challenged by Arvind but this ground is not available to the petitioner for it. The perusal of order reveals proper discussion of the issues for sanction for prosecution. It cannot be said to be a case of non-application of mind. The issue aforesaid has been discussed by the court below by referring various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held therein that even minor irregularity or omission would not be fatal unless resulted in failure of justice. The case of aforesaid nature is not made out, thus I do not find any ground to cause interference in the impugned order. The order passed by the court below is a reasoned and detailed order where all the issues have been discussed and decided. I do not find any error therein so as to cause interference.The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******