Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1935 (RAJ)

K. B. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2015-11-24

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR No.334/2010 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and also the order dated 9.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge, ACD Cases, Alwar whereby the learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Section 120-B IPC. 3. The FIR has been challenged mainly on the ground that no offence at all is disclosed against the petitioners from the allegations levelled in the same whereas the order of cognizance has been challenged on the ground that once prosecution sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act was refused by the competent authority as well as at the level of the State Government, cognizance cannot be taken against them even if petitioners have retired from their service and the final report was filed in the Court below thereafter. 4. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioners and two other co-accused for the offence under Section 15 of the Act and for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and during investigation evidence was collected and it was found by the Investigation Officer that the petitioners and co-accused entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same the petitioners attempted to give electricity connection despite the fact that dues were outstanding. The matter was placed before the competent authority for grant of sanction as required under Section 19 of the Act, but the competent authority refused to grant the same vide order dated 26.7.2012 and this order was also maintained at the level of the State Government vide order dated 26.9.2012. As prosecution sanction was not granted, negative final report was prepared and it was filed before the trial Court but learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 9.10.2015 came to a conclusion that as the petitioners have retired from their service, prosecution sanction is not required and with this finding on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation cognizance for the aforesaid offence was taken. 5. 5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that although prosecution sanction is not required in respect of a public servant, who has retired from the service, but once such sanction has been refused by the competent authority at the time when the public servant was in service and after investigation final report is filed in the Court, cognizance cannot be taken merely by the reason that at the time when cognizance has been taken he was not holding any office as a public servant. It was further submitted that if for the sake of arguments allegations levelled in the FIR are taken to their face value even then no offence is disclosed against the petitioners. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 2011 SC 2893 . 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is well settled legal position that once the public servant ceases to hold the office which he was holding at the time of commission of the offence, sanction to prosecute him under Section 19 of the Act is not required. It was further submitted that from the allegations levelled in the FIR and evidence collected during investigation, it is clear that petitioners as public servants took necessary steps to grant electricity connection despite the fact that it was brought in their knowledge that dues are outstanding. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record and also the relevant provisions and the case law. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that competent authority vide order dated 26.7.2012 refused to grant sanction and this order was maintained at the Government level also and, therefore, in absence of sanction negative final report was filed before the learned trial Court. 9. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that competent authority vide order dated 26.7.2012 refused to grant sanction and this order was maintained at the Government level also and, therefore, in absence of sanction negative final report was filed before the learned trial Court. 9. In the case of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that sanction under Section 19 of the Act to prosecute a public servant is not required and cognizance can be taken against him even in absence of such sanction if it is taken after the public servant is retired, but at the same time it was also held that if sanction has been earlier refused while the accused was in office he cannot be prosecuted after his retirement on the ground that now no such sanction is required. In the present case, as the sanction was refused by the competent authority and the same was also maintained at the level of the State Government, cognizance could not be taken against the petitioners on the basis of negative final report in absence of the sanction even if the petitioners are now retired. 10. In view of the above legal position, impugned order of cognizance is bad in law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.10.2015 passed by Special Judge, ACD Cases, Alwar is quashed and set aside. The FIR No.334/2010 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur is also quashed and set aside. In view of the above, the stay application is also disposed of.Petition allowed. *******