Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 868 (RAJ)

Prakash Dharu v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Prakash Dharu has approached this Court assailing the order dated 19.2.2013 whereby, sanction was granted to prosecute him for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was posted as an ASI at the Police Station Ratanada at the relevant point of time was trapped whilst accepting bribe of Rs. 5000/- from one Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat. After lodging of the written report, the allegation of demand of bribe levelled by the complainant was verified and a trap was laid. The petitioner is alleged to have accepted the bribe amount from the complainant at the University Out Post. He appears to have caught wind of the trap laid for apprehending him upon which, he tried to escape by scaling the wall of the Out Post after throwing down the tainted currency notes. Nevertheless, he was apprehended by the trap party. The tainted currency notes were found lying behind the Out Post. The petitioner’s hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and the wash turned pink. The recordings saved in the digital voice recorder at the time of demand and the acceptance of bribe were heard and the fact that the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification was duly corroborated therefrom. The petitioner was given a notice to give his sample voice for comparison but he refused. The wash of the petitioner’s hands was sent to the FSL wherefrom, a report was received that it tested positive for presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. While concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the allegation of demand as well as the acceptance of bribe was duly proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted a proposal of sanction to the petitioner’s disciplinary authority being the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police Comissionerate, Jodhpur, who by order dated 19.2.2013, which is assailed in the instant writ petition, accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the above offences. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 3. The principal challenge which is laid to the impugned sanction order by the petitioner’s counsel Ms. Vandana Bhansali is that the sanction was accorded without due and independent application of mind to the facts of the case. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 3. The principal challenge which is laid to the impugned sanction order by the petitioner’s counsel Ms. Vandana Bhansali is that the sanction was accorded without due and independent application of mind to the facts of the case. The Investigating Agency submitted a draft sanction to the disciplinary authority, who without application of mind to the facts of the case, mechanically signed the draft sanction. Thus, as per the learned counsel, the sanction order dated 19.2.2013 having been passed without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of her arguments, Ms. Bhansali relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ganga Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) RLW 2619 (Raj.) and urged that the writ petition deserves acceptance and the sanction order dated 19.2.2013 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri Anil Bissa, AGC vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority with due application of mind to the facts of the case. The facts as set out in the trap proceedings are clear to the effect that the petitioner demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant. The conversation held between the petitioner and the decoy at the time of demand and acceptance of bribe was duly recorded in the digital voice recorder carried by the decoy. The petitioner was issued a notice to give his sample voice for comparison but, he refused to do so. Thus, as per him, the adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer submitted a draft sanction and that the sanctioning authority mechanically signed the same has been vehemently controverted and opposed by learned AGC by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Govind Narain Goyal v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 283/2014) decided on 24.2.2015. He thus urged that the impugned order is perfectly just and legal and does not call for any interference. 5. Petition No. 283/2014) decided on 24.2.2015. He thus urged that the impugned order is perfectly just and legal and does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. So far as the judgment in the case of Ganga Ram (supra) relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel is concerned, the same was based on the peculiar facts of that particular case. The petitioner therein was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in relation to the very same charges on the basis whereof he was sought to be prosecuted. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him of majority of the charges. Despite that, on the very same facts, the petitioner was placed under suspension and sanction was also granted to prosecute him. In those peculiar facts, this Court was of the view that the order according sanction to prosecute the petitioner suffered from non-application of mind and quashed the same. 7. The facts of the case at hand are entirely distinguishable. The petitioner is alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant. The fact of demand and acceptance was verified by the recording saved in the digital voice recorder carried by the decoy. The petitioner was asked to give his sample voice for comparison but he refused to do so. Thus, the prosecution would be entitled to claim adverse inference against the petitioner. As per the facts available on record, the petitioner, seems to have caught wind of the trap proceedings after accepting the tainted currency notes at the Police Out Post and tried to escape after throwing down the bribe money. He was however apprehended at the spot. The bribe money was recovered lying behind the Police Out Post. The petitioner’s hands were washed and the wash tested positive for presence of phenolphthalein. Thus, the foundation and structure of the order according sanction to prosecute the petitioner could not have been even slightly different from the one which is set out in the impugned order. 8. It is common knowledge that the sanction orders are drawn up after an active discussion is held between the sponsoring and the sanctioning authorities. Thus, the draft sanction if prepared would virtually be an expression of the sanctioning authority. 8. It is common knowledge that the sanction orders are drawn up after an active discussion is held between the sponsoring and the sanctioning authorities. Thus, the draft sanction if prepared would virtually be an expression of the sanctioning authority. Though the respondents have categorically denied that the draft sanction and the order according sanction are verbatim the same but even if it is accepted for argument’s sake, that the draft sanction and the order according sanction are identical then too, it hardly affects the merits of the order granting sanction because the narration of facts mentioned therein could not have been deviated in the slightest. 9. As a consequence, this Court is of the firm opinion that neither any infirmity is reflected in the order granting sanction nor any prejudice is caused to the petitioner so as to call for any interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The impugned order ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference. 11. The writ petition thus being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 12. The ad interim stay order dated 9.4.2013 is vacated. The stay petition is also rejected. 13. The prosecution shall now proceed with the matter expeditiously and as per law. Cost made easy.