Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 582 (RAJ)

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-03-04

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
Judgment 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 21.02.2012, by which she had dismissed the writ petition, challenging the sanction given by the Central Government, to prosecute the appellant, an Officer of Indian Administrative Service, in FIR No.150/1998, registered at Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The writ petition was filed on the grounds that the competent authority did not approve sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The State Government, while making recommendations for sanction to the Central Government, did not apply its mind, nor the orders were passed by the Chief Secretary, and the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan. A draft of sanction, recommended by the State Government sent without approval of the Chief Secretary and Chief Minister of Rajasthan, was approved by the Central Government without application of mind. 4. Learned Single Judge examined the original record and found that the proposal of sanction was approved by the Chief Secretary, Minister of DOP, and the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan on 05.10.2000, 06.10.2000 and 03.11.2000 respectively, and on which, a draft order of sanction was prepared. In the note-sheet in para 234, on the approval of the draft order of sanction, a note was put that the competent authority has not taken the decision on the sanction. The file was returned from the Office of the Chief Minister with a note at para 235; “Hon'ble C.M. has already approved the above at 233/N.” 5. Learned Single Judge recorded the findings that the decision to obtain prosecution sanction was not taken by the DOP Minister as it had already been taken by the competent authority including the Chief Minister. She observed that the language of the noting at para 233, is self speaking. 6. An additional affidavit has been filed in the Special Appeal, annexing therewith a xerox copy of the note-sheet of the file of the recommendation for sanction, prepared by the State Government, in which it is stated that in the note-sheet, Hon'ble Minister of DOP had, in fact, endorsed that he had not approved the sanction, as proposed. 6. An additional affidavit has been filed in the Special Appeal, annexing therewith a xerox copy of the note-sheet of the file of the recommendation for sanction, prepared by the State Government, in which it is stated that in the note-sheet, Hon'ble Minister of DOP had, in fact, endorsed that he had not approved the sanction, as proposed. The word 'not' has been subsequently manipulated as 'DFA', on which the petitioner has taken a report from an expert, who has opined that the words have been interpolated and manipulated in the note-sheet, and are in the handwriting of two different persons. 7. We do not find that this argument was raised before learned Single Judge, nor any application has been filed seeking permission of the Court to admit the documents including the report of the handwriting expert in evidence. Such evidence is not admissible at the stage of Special Appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge, recording the finding that the recommendations to the Central Government were approved by the State Government under the signatures of the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the trap, in which the appellant was arrested with currency notes treated with chemicals of Rs.15,000/-, stuffed in his pockets, and that in which on both his hands traces of phenolphthalein powder was reported, were planted on him and that the entire trap proceedings were stage managed at the instance of private manufacturers of animal husbandry drugs, for which the appellant has restricted the purchase as against the Drugs manufactured by State and companies in public sector. 9. The sanction order signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India on 31.01.2002, in the same language, as was proposed by the State Government, but that by itself does not suggest that the competent authority in the Central Government did not apply its mind, nor such argument was raised speciously before learned Single Judge. 10. The submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trap was manipulated, is not prima-facie borne out from the circumstances and the material collected by the Investigating Officer. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the sanction order, it is stated that the appellant did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer. 10. The submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trap was manipulated, is not prima-facie borne out from the circumstances and the material collected by the Investigating Officer. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the sanction order, it is stated that the appellant did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer. He avoided giving his specimen voice on one pretext or other, and did not appear even once for examination before the Investigating Officer. 11. A faint attempt has been made to submit that the Officer who conducted the trap had conducted the investigation, and that since he did not give a copy of the recovery memo, the appellant on the apprehension of bias, did not appear before him. These are the issues, which may be considered in the trial, and in any case these allegations, cannot be made the subject matter of challenge to the sanction order. The order of sanction was challenged only on the ground that the competent authority had not given the sanction, nor there was any application of mind recommending sanction by the State Government, and the competent authority of the Central Government. 12. We do not find any error of law in the judgment of learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 13. The Special Appeal is dismissed.