Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 6 (MP)

Laxminarayan Vishwakarma v. State of M. P.

2018-01-02

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, S.K.SETH

body2018
ORDER Seth, J. -- 1. In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Sehore in Criminal Case No.04/2017 whereby application under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act filed by the applicant has been rejected. 2. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted as Senior Agriculture Development Officer in the Office of Deputy Director, Department of Kisan Kalyan Tatha Krishi Vikas (Formerly known as Department of Agriculture), Nashrullhaganj, District-Sehore. A written complaint was made by one Vikram Tiwari alleging that petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- and he did not want to pay the bribe. 3. On the basis of the written complaint, a trap was laid by the Lokayukt Police. In the trap, petitioner was caught red-handed accepting bribe, as a result whereof a criminal case was registered against him. After completing the investigation, the material collected during the investigation was placed before the Administrative Department to accord sanction for prosecution. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Sehore. The order of sanction was challenged by the petitioner before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Sehore and by the order impugned, the said application was rejected by the trial Court, hence, this petition. 4. We have heard the rival submissions at length and perused the material available on record. 5. To assail the prosecution sanction, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director, Kisan Kalyan Tatha Krishi Vikas Department, therefore, Under-Secretary was not competent to issue the sanction for prosecution. It was further alleged that prima facie no case was made out for sanction for prosecution. It is also contended that there were discrepancies in the transcript of recording to digital voice recorder. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in AIR 2014 SC 827 . It was held by their Lordships in that case, the sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the Government servant against frivolous prosecution. It was held by their Lordships in that case, the sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the Government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, although not a shield for the guilty. 7. The law on this point is no logner res integra. It is now well settled that an order granting sanction for prosecution is an administrative function and for that, only prima facie satisfaction of the authority is needed. The adequacy of material cannot be judged at this stage and the Court should not interfere with the valid sanction adopting hyper-technical view. Now coming to the question of sanction order issued by Under-Secretary, it is settled that in a democratic setup file moves from one rung of the ladder to a higher rung in the order of hierarchy and each level officer has to give his input before file moves forward. It is well established working procedure of the Executive Branch of the Government. After the matter is processed and a decision is taken, a formal and duly authentic order is issued in terms of Rules of Business. It is the sanction order issued by the State Government and not by the Under-Secretary. 8. We find no force in the submission that sanction for prosecution has been passed by Under Secretary. In fact, it is a formal order duly authenticated by and in the name of the Governor of M.P. in terms of Rules of Business of the Government. The decision is taken on the file and thereafter it is only a formal order which has been issued by and in the name of the Governor to issue the sanction order. The contention that Under Secretary was not authorised is neither here nor there because the sanction order has been issued by the State Government which is the requirement of law. In this context, we may say that there is a presumption that all official acts have been done by the respective functionaries in discharge of the duties enjoined on them under the law. 9. We find no force in the submission that entire material was not placed before issuing the sanction order. The sanction order is not defective. In this context, we may say that there is a presumption that all official acts have been done by the respective functionaries in discharge of the duties enjoined on them under the law. 9. We find no force in the submission that entire material was not placed before issuing the sanction order. The sanction order is not defective. Even in the case of CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggrawal (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that validity of a sanction order can be challenged only at the time of trial and not at this stage. The petitioner would have liberty to challenge the sanction order at the proper stage of trial and it would be the matter for the trial Court to decide it after the evidence is led. 10. Thus, we find no merit and substance in the petition, same is accordingly dismissed. 11. Ordered accordingly. Gaurav Tiwari for petitioner; Pankaj Dubey for respondent/Lokayukt.