Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 484 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad Phulwari v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-20

GANESH RAM MEENA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS with a challenge to quash and set aside the impugned order of prosecution sanction dated 09.10.2023 by which sanction to prosecute the accused-petitioner has been granted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B IPC in connection with FIR No.311/2022 registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur on 05.08.2022. 2. The basic submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while issuing the prosecution sanction vide order dated 09.10.2023, the authority concerned has not made the order with his due application of mind. He further submits that the concerned authority has issued the order of prosecution sanction merely by relying upon the conclusion/version of the Investigating Agency without citing any reasons for acceptance or non-acceptance of the view of the Investigating Officer. He further submits that it was obligatory upon the Sanctioning Authority to give out the reasons either for accepting the conclusion of the Investigating Agency or not accepting the same. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC 273 . 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the Sanctioning Authority while issuing the prosecution sanction has referred to the evidence and other material collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, which, in the Sanctioning Authority’s opinion is sufficient to prosecute the accused-petitioner. He further submits that the Sanctioning Authority was not required to give its observations and findings as regards the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency because the same may affect the further proceedings. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the impugned order dated09.10.2023 issued by the Sanctioning Authority. 5. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint of one Omprakash Sharma as regards an allegation of demand of bribe, verification is said to have been conducted and later on an FIR No.311/2022 was registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur on 05.08.2022 prior to which the petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2022. 5. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint of one Omprakash Sharma as regards an allegation of demand of bribe, verification is said to have been conducted and later on an FIR No.311/2022 was registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur on 05.08.2022 prior to which the petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2022. After completion of investigation, the investigation report was sent to the Competent Authority for issuance of prosecution sanction as regards the accused-petitioner who was posted as Chief Fire Officer in Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Greater. 6. The Authority concerned while issuing the prosecution sanction is said to have considered the material made available by the Investigating Officer and has also personally heard the Investigating Officer as is evident from the impugned order. 7. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides that previous sanction for prosecution of a public servant/government servant is mandatory. It has been provided under Section 19 that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction. 8. The basic object behind seeking prosecution sanction prior to taking cognizance against a public servant/government servant is that as regards the functioning of the department or office, no other department shall unnecessarily interfere in the day to day functioning of the department concerned and also to ensure that the public servant is not unnecessarily harassed by any other department or agency because it is only the concerned department where the public servant is employed, of whose basic procedures of functioning the Sanctioning Authority is aware of. Similarly, the other details pertaining to the act done by the public servant, which is alleged to be an offence by the Investigating Agency or complainant is also within the specific knowledge of the officials of the concerned department. In the background of the object of seeking prosecution sanction before taking cognizance, it was obligatory upon the authority issuing the prosecution sanction to state the reasons for accepting the conclusion/version of the Investigating Agency or not accepting the same. Meaning-thereby, the Sanctioning Authority is supposed to make out the application of mind over the report including the evidence placed before it by the Investigating Agency before passing an order of issuance of prosecution sanction. 9. To this effect, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. Meaning-thereby, the Sanctioning Authority is supposed to make out the application of mind over the report including the evidence placed before it by the Investigating Agency before passing an order of issuance of prosecution sanction. 9. To this effect, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 SCC 172 has observed as under:- “ 3. …..This argument is wholly untenable because what the Court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority at the time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind for the same and any subsequent fact which may come into existence after the resolution granting sanction has been passed, is wholly irrelevant. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictily complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92 has also opined on similar lines as under:- “ 7. Validity of an order of sanction depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered [See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat] The authority is concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority. [See State v. Dr. R.C. Anand]” 11. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered [See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat] The authority is concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority. [See State v. Dr. R.C. Anand]” 11. In the case of Ameerjan (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.9 of the said judgment observed as under:- "We agree that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not." 12. On going through the impugned order issuing the prosecution sanction, this Court finds that no discussion has been made by the concerned authority as regards the material made available before it by the Investigating Agency while issuing prosecution sanction. Though, the impugned order provides that before passing the said order, the Investigating Officer was allowed personal hearing; nothing has been mentioned as to the particulars of what was submitted by the Investigating Officer and on what basis the version of the Investigating Officer was accepted and further what was the material to support the version of the Investigating Officer. 13. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the impugned order of issuance of prosecution sanction, this Court feels that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements i.e. does not point towards due application of mind by the sanctioning authority, as the same is found to be issued in a mechanical manner merely referring to certain conclusions of the Investigating Agency without giving out specific reasons thereof. Therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order of prosecution sanction dated 09.10.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. 15. The respondents/Prosecution Sanctioning Authority is set at liberty to pass a fresh order under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018, if it so chooses with due application of mind to be reflected in the order. 16. 15. The respondents/Prosecution Sanctioning Authority is set at liberty to pass a fresh order under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018, if it so chooses with due application of mind to be reflected in the order. 16. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.