Petitioner challenged prosecution sanction order under Prevention of Corruption Act alleging arbitrary procedure. Court relied on CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, held no mini-trial at judicial review stage, and dismissed petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:27591]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 138/2022
Hawa Singh S/o Shri Jaimal Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Dhani Gasikali, Nai Kothi, Ward No. 13, Madhogarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj) Last Posted At Patwari Patwar Halka Chimanpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, Dy.GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
02/07/2024
The present petition is filed against the prosecution sanction order dated 25/03/2021 passed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner. It is submitted that on 11/10/2017, the petitioner entered into the services of the respondent department being appointed as Patwari. It is further submitted that Anti Corruption Bureau has carried out proceedings on 11/03/2020 against the petitioner on complaint wherein allegations. The petitioner has demanded Rs. 1500/- for making mutation entry in his favour and finally, settled the said work in Rs. 1,000/- was mentioned that Rs.
[2024:RJ-JP:27591]
[CRLW-138/2022]
(2 of 3)
500/- has already been given to the petitioner and remaining Rs.500/- was to be given to the petitioner.
In persuasion of the said complaint, the office of ACB, Jaipur conducted trap proceedings. Further, without following due process of law, the office of ACB, Jaipur arrested the petitioner on account of receiving the illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant and therefore, FIR bearing No. 58/2020 dated 14/03/2020 for offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 was registered against the petitioner.
After registering the case, investigation was carried out and charge sheet was proposed on 15/01/2021, ACB sent a communication of respondent no. 2 for request to grant prosecution sanction. It is submitted that on perusal of the said proposal as per page 39 of the petition, the only document which was sent ”izk:i vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr”.
In this background, the petitioner submits that without considering the documents/records and the facts of the case without application of mind, the present sanction order was passed which is per se illegal, arbitrary and against settled position of law as held in Criminal Appeal No. 1838/2013 titled as C.B.I. vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has relied upon annexure-7 dated 25/03/2021 in para 10 which is reproduced below:-
“10. esjs }kjk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj foe”kZ dj i=koyh ij miyC/k xokgku ds c;ku vfHkys[kh; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; o nLrkostkr dk HkyhHkkafr v/;;u djus ij eSa iw.kZr;k lUrq’V gwW fd Jh gokflag iVokjh] iVokuj gYdk fpeuiqjk dksViwryh t;iqj ds fo:) tqeZ vUrxZr /kkjk 7 Hkz’Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la”kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 dk vijk/k izekf.kr gS ,oa eSa mDr ds fo:) vfHk;kstu pykus dk i{k/kj gwWA “
[2024:RJ-JP:27591]
[CRLW-138/2022]
(3 of 3)
Considering the arguments made by the respective sides, analyzing the record of the present petition and considering the judgment cited at bar.
It is also noted that annexure-6 ACB report, which was formulated for prosecution sanction only reference to ”izk:i vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr”. On consideration of the abovesaid and relying upon the judgment in CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) while exercising jurisdiction under 482 has to be cautious that when there are disputed question of facts, the court cannot conduct mini trial. The prosecution/investigation agency at this stage need not prove the charges. The court has to analyse prima facie reasons wherein criminal trial and the case can be continued. In the facts of the case while dismissing the present petition, this court can only observe that if the petitioner was choose he may raised any office contention before the trial court who can consider the same in accordance with law.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that any observation of this court will not prejudice, the court below adjudicate the issue in accordance with law.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /122
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash prosecution sanction order in a corruption case without converting appeal into a mini-trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.B.I. vs. Ashok Kumar AgarwalRelied on¶30
(2014) 14 SCC 295 · Who else cites this
Hawa Singh
State Of Rajasthan
SAMEER JAIN
ANIL SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
