Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 359 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-03-02

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner complainant being aggrieved of the order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur in Complaint Case No.2/2013 whereby, the complaint filed by the petitioner complainant was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegation levelled by the petitioner complainant in his complaint and the supporting material, clearly disclosed the essential ingredients of cognisable offences. Thus he submits that the learned trial court ought to have sent the matter to the State Government for grant of prosecution sanction against the accused rather than rejecting the petitioner's complaint on the ground that it was not supported by a prosecution sanction. He contends that the petitioner, being a private individual, cannot be expected to directly approach the Government for grant of sanction. Thus he urges that the impugned order is grossly illegal and deserves to be set aside and the trial court be directed to forward the matter to the State Government for granting sanction to prosecute the respondents. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and submitted that the impugned order is absolutely just and proper and calls for no interference whatsoever. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record. 5. It cannot be gainsaid that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a sine-qua-non before a public servant can be prosecuted for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Manshukhdas Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1997 SC 3400 , has clearly expounded that even the High Court, while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the State Government to accord sanction for prosecuting a public servant. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner complainant was desirous of prosecuting the respondent public servants for the various offences, including the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act then, he should have approached the State Government for granting sanction to prosecute them. The trial court has no jurisdiction to issue such directions. 6. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner complainant was desirous of prosecuting the respondent public servants for the various offences, including the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act then, he should have approached the State Government for granting sanction to prosecute them. The trial court has no jurisdiction to issue such directions. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 7. The revision petition thus being devoid of any merit is rejected. I.A. No. 244/2015 filed for early hearing of the petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. Record be sent back.