Partly allowed

Kishore Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2017CRLMP/2500/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a prosecution sanction order under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court quashed the order as being laconic, non-speaking, and suffering from gross non-application of mind, with the matter remanded to the District Collector for fresh consideration. The petitioner is granted stay of arrest pending fresh proceeding

What did the court decide?

The sanction order dated 11.08.2014 was quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Collector to pass a fresh order. The petitioner shall not be arrested pending the fresh decision.

Kishore Singh Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2500 / 2014

¶3

Kishore Singh son of Shri Laxman Singh by caste Rajput aged about 38 years resident of 4/15 Mandi Samiti Colony, In front of Housing Board, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Singh.

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP.

¶10

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Addl. S.P., ACB, Sri Ganganagar.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/09/2017

¶14

By way of this misc. petition, the petitioner Kishore Singh has approached this Court for assailing the further proceedings of FIR No.483/2011 registered with the Anti Corruption Bureau Outpost Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 477A, 120B IPC and Sections 13(1)(C)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶15

During the pendency of the misc. petition, an order of prosecution sanction dated 11.08.2014 was passed against the petitioner which has also been placed on record of the proceedings. Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urges that there is absolutely no material whatsoever so as to proceed against the petitioner in this matter.

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

The petitioner was posted as a Patwari in the Patwar Mandal, Maler, Tehsil Suratgarh at the relevant point of time. Recommendations issued by the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Maler for writing off the loan of certain farmers were sent to the petitioner who allegedly verified the same. The FIR was lodged with the allegation that most of the farmers whose loans were written off were not entitled for claiming the said benefit because their lands exceeded the maximum limit of 2 hectares. Shri A.K. Singh points out that the concerned officers of the Cooperative Society have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings by the Joint Registrar. He further urges that the proposals to prosecute them for these very offences have been turned down by the competent authority and prosecution of the petitioner alone for the very same offences is totally unjustified. He urges that the sanctioning authority passed the sanction order so as to prosecute the petitioner with total non-application of mind without even barely adverting to the relevant material and thus assailed the sanction order dated 11.08.2014 as being totally laconic and bereft of reasons. He thus contends that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the proceedings of the impugned FIR should be quashed.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the investigating officer Shri Rajendra Prasad, Addl. S.P., ACB Sri Ganganagar vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and urges that as sanction order has been issued by the competent authority for prosecuting the petitioner,

¶19

(3 of 5)

¶20

this Court should be loath to interfere in the proceedings while exercising its inherent powers.

¶21

I have heard and considered the arguments at Bar and have gone through the impugned FIR as well as the sanction order dated 11.08.2014 issued by the District Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar to prosecute the petitioner which reads as below:

¶22

Þ&% vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr %&

¶23

vijk/k la[;k 483@2011 fo:) Jh fd’kksjflag rRdkyhu jktLo iVokjh iVokj e.My ekysj rglhy lwjrx<+ ftyk Jhxaxkuxj

¶24

egkfuns’kd] Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks] jktLFkku t;iqj ds i= Øeakd HkzfuC;wjks@v’kk@2014@1536&38 fnuakd 26-05-2014 ds }kjk Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks esa ntZ vijk/k la[;k 483@2011 vUrxZr /kkjk 13¼1½¼lh½¼Mh½ 13¼2½ ihlh ,DV 1988 ,oa 409]420]477, ,oa 420 ch Hkk-n-lesa vkjksfir Jh fd’kksjflag rRdkyhu iVokjh iVokj e.My ekysj rglhy lwjrx<+ ftyk Jhaxaxkuxj ds fo:) vfHk;sktu Lohd`fr ds izLrko bl dk;kZy; dks izkIr gq, gSA

¶25

izdj.k esa Jh fd’kksjflag iVokjh ds vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ds Øe esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks okrkZ gsrq e; fjdkMZ fnaukd 16-07-2014 dks cqyk;k x;k A fnukad 16-07-2014 dks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls okrkZ dh x;hA izdj.k esa Jh fd’kksjflag iVokjh dks fnukad 16-07-2014 dks cqyk;k x;kA Jh fd’kksjflag iVokjh }kjk fyf[kr esa viuk i{k izLrqr fd;k x;kA

¶26

eSa vkjŒ,lŒ tk[kM+] ftyk dyDVj¼HkwŒvŒ½] Jhxaxkuxj tks mDr Jh fd’kksjfalg iVokjh iVokj e.My ekysj rglhy lwjrx<+ ftyk Jh xaxkuxj dks muds in ls iFkd djus esa l{ke gwWA esjs }kjk vfHk;kstu izLrqrdrkZ dh i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] ntZ izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA Jh fd’kksjflag iVokjh }kjk fyf[kr esa izLrqr fd;s x;s i{k dk voyskdu fd;k x;kA eSa fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh ds :i esa vfHk;kstu Lohdfr tkjh djus esa l{ke vf/kdkjh gwWA eSa /kkjk 19 ihlh ,DV 1988 }kjk iznRr ‘kfDRk;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ] vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh izfØ;k o izLrqr nLrkostkr ds vk/kkj ij Jh fd’kksjflag rRdkyhu iVokjh iVokj e.My ekysj rglhy lwjrx<+ ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ds fo:) mijksDr tqeksZ 13¼1½¼lh½¼Mh½ 13¼2½ ihlh ,DV 1988 ,oa 409]420]477, ,oa 120 ch Hkkn-l- ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k ds fy;s vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr iznku djrk gwWA

¶27

,lMh@&

¶28

ftyk dyDVj¼HkwŒvŒ½ Jhxaxkuxjß

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

On a bare perusal of the sanction order, it is apparent that the sanctioning authority being the District Collector acted in a totally mechanical fashion and passed an absolutely laconic order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Even the bare facts necessary to unfold the prosecution case were not set out in the sanction order. As such, the sanction order suffers from total gross non-application of mind to the relevant fact regarding the concerned Supervisor/ officials of the Cooperative Society having been exonerated was indeed a material circumstance and ought to have been considered by the sanctioning authority before proceeding to grant sanction against the petitioner.

¶31

In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the sanction order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the District Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar is bad in the eye of law as the same is laconic and non-speaking and hence cannot be sustained.

¶32

Consequently, the instant misc. petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The sanction order dated 11.08.2014 passed by the District Collector (Land Records) Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar to consider in detail the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and to pass a fresh order in the matter as per law. The petitioner may submit a detailed representation to the District Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar on or before 23.10.2017 who, in turn, shall objectively consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation before passing a

¶33

(5 of 5)

¶34

fresh order as directed above.

¶35

Till the question of sanction is decided afresh by the District Collector (Land Record), Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner shall not be arrested in this case.

¶36

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶37

Tikam/99

Kishore Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalu Ram Vs State and Ors.

M/S Jilani Marbles Vs Gokul Vala Products Pvt.Ltd.

Hemendra Singh and Ors. Vs Smt.Veenu and Anr.

Dr. a. K. Chittora Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Dr. G. S. Bhardwaj Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Dr. Sudha Mathur Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.