Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1282 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-04

BIRENDRA KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Birendra Kumar, J. - The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 352 dated 20.12.2028 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Police Station for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. As per FIR, the petitioner was Assistant Drug Controller on the date of incident. The petitioner allegedly demanded Rs.50,000/- from complainant Kuldeep Singh for renewal of his expired drug licence. Kuldeep Singh made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau on 11.12.2019. The Anti Corruption Bureau confidentially verified the allegation of Kuldeep Singh on 17.12.2018. Conversation between the petitioner and Kuldeep was taken on record and the authorities decided to have a trap of the petitioner. Different notes of Rs. 500/- denomination total Rs. 20,000/- were put under Sodium Carbonate and other chemicals and the petitioner was caught while accepting bribe on 19.12.2018. After completion of investigation, the authorities obtained sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The said sanction order dated 23.6.2021 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that last paragraph of the sanction order would reveal that no work of the complainant was directly pending before the petitioner. There is no evidence of direct demand of 50,000/- by the petitioner. However, since the trap money was recovered from the petitioner and petitioner had no reasonable explanation for that, therefore, prima facie, offence was made out and accordingly, sanction to prosecute was accorded. Learned counsel on the basis of aforesaid statement in the sanction order, contends that in spite of no evidence of demand and no work of the complainant directly pending with the petitioner, sanction to prosecute has been granted without application of mind on mere conjunctures and surmises. Mere recovery would not attract the penal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Mr. Atul Sharma, Dy.G.A., for the respondents contends that even acceptance of bribe is punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and statement of complainant Kuldeep Singh that there was demand of bribe by the petitioner has not been taken note of by the sanctioning authority, therefore, it cannot be argued that there was no material for grant of sanction nor it can be argued that offence under Section 7 of the Act is not made out. Moreover, the meticulous appreciation regarding sufficiency of material to grant sanction would be considered at the appropriate stage of the trial and not at this stage. 5. Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act is clear enough that when a public servant obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly shall be punishable under this Section. In the case on hand, there is material that the petitioner had accepted bribe money, therefore, clear offence under Section 7 of the Act was made out for grant of sanction to prosecute. 6. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the law in this regard as follows: "19. The court must examine whether the issue raised regarding failure of justice is actually a failure of justice in the true sense or whether it is only a camouflage argument. The expression 'failure of justice' is an extremely pliable or facile an expression which can be made to fit into any case. The court must endeavour to find out the truth. There would be 'failure of justice' not only by unjust conviction but also by acquittal of the guilty as a result of unjust or negligent failure to produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the accused have to be kept in mind and safeguarded but they should not be over emphasised to the extent of forgetting that the victims also have certain rights. It has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in the protections available to him under Indian Criminal Jurisprudence. 'Prejudice' is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not matters falling beyond their scope. Once the accused is able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him with respect to either of these aspects and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under legal jurisprudence, the accused can seek relief from the Court. (Vide: Nageshwar Sh. Once the accused is able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him with respect to either of these aspects and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under legal jurisprudence, the accused can seek relief from the Court. (Vide: Nageshwar Sh. Krishna Ghobe v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 165 ; Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 921 ; State by Police Inspector v. T. Venkatesh Murthy, AIR 2004 SC 5117 ; Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 3114 ; Rattiram & Ors. v. State of M.P. through Inspector of Police, AIR 2012 SC 1485 ; Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 3026 ; Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840 ; and Union of India & Ors. v. Ex-GNR Ajeet Singh, (2013) 4 SCC 186 ). "59. Undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pretrial stage." 7. Moreover, in the case on hand, no case of failure of justice is pleaded or canvassed for any irregularity in grant of sanction. 8. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, decided on 3.9.1997; K. Shamthamma v. the State of Telangana reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 192; Mohd. Iqbal Ahmd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 194/1973 decided on 16.1.1979; Delhi High Court in Shri Sandeep Silas v. CBI & Ors., Crl.M.C. No. 3137/2017 decided on 15.3.2019 as well as judgment of this Court in Babu Lal Vishnoi v. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., through its Managing Director & Ors. reported in 2022 (3) R.J.R. (Raj.) 806. 9. It is evident that those cases were decided on different facts and circumstances prevailing in those cases, therefore, they are not helping the petitioner. 10. In view of the conclusions arrived above, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit. 11. Interim application also stands disposed of.