CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 1/2021 on 19 December 2020

1. The accused petitioner has filed this criminalmisc. petition u/S 482 CrPC with the prayer to summonthe entire relevant record and after perusal of the same,the order dated 19.12.2020 whereby the prosecutionsanction has been accorded by the Superintendent ofPolice, Shri Ganganagar against him in relation to FIR No.245/2020 dated 27.10.2020 registered at Police StationCPS, Jaipur, District ACB, Jodhpur for the offencepunishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 (for short ‘the amendment Act of2018’ read with Section 120-B IPC, may be quashed andset aside and further all the consequential proceedings infurtherance thereof including the order of cognizancedated 04.01.2021 passed by Court of learned SpecialJudge, Court of Session, Prevention of Corruption Act,No. 1, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 1/2021, State Vs.Naresh Chand Meena, may be quashed and set aside.2.Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that

2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are thatcomplainant Hardeep Singh submitted a typed reportbefore the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Anti CorruptionBureau, Jodhpur, which is reproduced as follows:- "उपर्युकक्त व विषर क के स संब संध म पं प्राप्रार्थी हरथी हरद्थी हरदीपहरदीपस संह प्त्र पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री त्र श्री स वि० पुत्र शह पुत्र श्रीउतक्तमहरदीपस संह जं प्राक्त हरदीपसख उम्र 53 सं प्राल प केशं प्रा वर विसं प्रा ातय नि विं प्रासह पुत्र श्री 126लं प्राल क विं प्रायुर गगोव विनथी हरद य निगर कं प्राय निप्र ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा गगोव विनथी हरद य निगर ज जलं प्राकं प्राय निप्र सथी हरद रूपह पुत्र श्री कं प्रा अ जयु रह है कक म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के प विय नि क्मं प्राअरगोडं प्रा प्त्र त्र श्री स वि० पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री रं प्रामशरण जं प्राक्त हरदीपसख उम्र 39 सं प्राल ातय नि विं प्रासह पुत्र श्रीयल केबर कॉलगोय निह पुत्र श्री गगोव विनथी हरद य निगर कं प्राय निप्र वि म केर्थी हरदी पं प्राुहरदीपसशप म पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री ग्रक्त केगबहं प्राथी हरद् फं प्रामं प्रायु य निं प्राम क की थी हरद्कं प्राय नि शॉप य नि० 5- 59/115 A य निं प्राचघरप्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा कल केररग सं ज-09 बबरहय निं प्रा रगोड कं प्राय निप्र उतक्तर पथी हरद केश म है। म केरं प्रा भक्तह पुत्र श्री जं प्रा पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री प विय नि क्मं प्रा अरगों प्रा फं प्रामं प्रायु पर व विक्र कं प्रा कं प्रामथी हरद केखक्त के है क्तं प्रा मै ज केय निररक थी हरद विं प्राईरगो कगो कर करय नि के कं प्रा कं प्राम थी हरद केखक्तं प्राहू सं। दथी हरदय निं प्रा संक 18.09.2020 कगो म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के क की थी हरद्कं प्राय नि पर थी हरदगो वर जकक्तआए ज जनहगोय नि के म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो बक्तं प्रां प्रा कक हम ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ज विं प्राहर य निगरग संगं प्राय निगर रं प्रा जत्र श्री सं प्राय नि स के आए है उय निम के स के एक य नि के अपय निं प्रा य निं प्राम य निर केशमह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि थी हरदूसर के य नि के अपय निं प्रा य निं प्राम सगोहय निलं प्राल ए एस आई बक्तं प्रां प्रा।उनहगोय नि के म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो बक्तं प्रां प्रा कक आपस के थी हरद विं प्राईरगो क के स संब संध म क्छ

जं प्राय निकं प्रा्थी हरदी चं प्रादहए और वि के थी हरदगोय निगो म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो हॉरल गगय नि पलं प्रा जं प्राम ल के गए विहं प्राहाँ स के उनहन्होंय नि के म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के स के म्मुझ के फगोय नि कर विं प्रां प्रा ककआपस के थी हरद विं प्राईरगो क के स संब संध म क्छ जं प्राय निकं प्रा्थी हरदी चं प्रादहए आप रहं प्राहाँ परक्तर संक्त आए य निह्थी हरदी सं क्तगो आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो ग संगं प्राय निगर ल के जं प्रा केग के ज जस परमै हॉरल गगय नि पलं प्रा जं प्रा पह्हाँचं प्रा क्तगो य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि सगोहय निलं प्राल ए एसआई म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के क के सं प्रा हरदीपसमल के। उनहन्होंय नि के म्मुझस के कहं प्रा कक TRIO SR जगो नरूर के कमपय निह पुत्र श्री क की थी हरद विं प्राई है कक खर्थी हरदी ब केचय नि के क की सूचय निं प्रा हम उपलबध करं प्राओ कफर य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो थी हरद्कं प्राय नि पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री ग्रक्त केगबहं प्राथी हरद् फं प्रामं प्रायु ल के गरं प्रा और म्मुझ के सगोहय निलं प्राल ए एस आई य नि के हॉरलपर ह्थी हरदी रगोक दथी हरदं प्रा ्रारगोडह पुत्र श्री थी हद के बं प्राथी हरद म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के य नि के म्मुझ के फगोय नि ककरं प्रा ककरमैय नि के इय निकगो थी हरद विं प्राईरगो क के स संब संध म सूचय निं प्रा थी हरद के थी हरद्थी हरदी है। ककनक्त य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्राइय नि सूचय निं प्रा स के स संक्तष्र य निह्थी हरदी है। म्मुझ के य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के हॉरल गल केसह पुत्र श्रीपलं प्रा जं प्रा मं प्राल रगो कं प्राय निप्र ल के जं प्रा रहं प्रा है। इस पर पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री सगोहय निलं प्रालए.एस.आई य नि के म्मुझ के भह पुत्र श्री हगोरल गहैल केसह पुत्र श्री म ल के गरं प्रा। विहं प्रा सं पर जं प्राकरमैय नि के य निगोदरस क के समबनध म पूछं प्रा क्तगो उनहन्होंय नि के सूचय निं प्रा क के समबनध म य निगोदरस दथी हरदखं प्राय नि के स के मय निं प्रा कर दथी हरदं प्रा और कहं प्रा कक हम इय नि सूचय निं प्राओस के सनक्तष्र य निह्थी हरदी सं है। मै आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो प्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ग संगं प्राय निगररं प्रा जत्र श्री सं प्राय नि ल के जं प्राकर पूछक्तं प्राछ कर ग के। मैय नि के य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि सगोहय निलं प्रालस के कं प्राफ की हं प्रां प्रा जगोह पुत्र श्री कर सूचय निं प्रा क के समबनध म य निगोदरस दथी हरदखं प्राय नि के कं प्राकं प्राफ की ातय नि वि केथी हरदय नि ककरं प्रा क्तगो पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के थी हरदगो पातक्तरन्हों म य निगोदरसातय निकं प्रालं प्रा और एक य निगोदरस हम दथी हरदखं प्रां प्रा उस य निगोदरस क के य निह पुत्र श्रीच के पुत्र शह पुत्र श्रीरं प्रा ज केश क्मं प्रा प्हरदीपसलस इ संत्र श्री सप केरर क के हत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर ककरं प्रा ह्आ ्रारं प्रा उस परम केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री प विय नि क के हत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर कर विं प्राकर य निगोदरस अपय नि के पं प्रास ह्थी हरदीरख हरदीपसलरं प्रा। य निगोदरस क की थी हरदूसर्थी हरदी पातक्त हम य निह्थी हरदी सं थी हरद्थी हरदी हगोरल म थी हद के रं प्राक्तरक्तक हम पक्तं प्राोडक्त करक्त के रह के कं प्राफ की समर प पशचं प्राक्त पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि केम्मुझ के कहं प्रा कक आप 15 लं प्राख रूपर के थी हरद केओग के क्तगो हम आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के पुत्र शह पुत्र श्रीप विय नि क्मं प्रा कगो छगो थी हरद ग के, म केर्थी हरदी सह पुत्र श्रीआई सं प्राहब और ाडपर्थी हरदी सं प्राहब स केबं प्राक्त हगो गरह पुत्र श्री है, 15 लं प्राख म स के 2.50 लं प्राख म केर के, 2.50 लं प्राखसगोहय निलं प्राल ए एस आई क के. 10 लं प्राख सह पुत्र श्रीआई सं प्राहब और ाडपर्थी हरदीयसं प्राहब कगो थी हरद केय नि के पोड ग के। इसपर मैय नि के कहं प्रा कक म केर के ब बच केक की जमुह पुत्र श्री म पढं प्राई क की फ कीस क के पहैस के पोड के है मै आपकगो अभह पुत्र श्री लं प्राकर थी हरद के थी हरदू संगं प्रा। इसथी हरदरं प्राय नि य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा म केर के सं प्रा हगोरल स के म केर के घर पर सं प्रा चलं प्रा औरम केर के स के 15 लं प्राख रूपर के हरदीपसलर के। मै और य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा विं प्रास सगोहय निलं प्राल

क के पं प्रास आर के क्तगो म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के य नि के थी हरद विं प्राईरन्हों स के समब जनधक्त सूचय निं प्राउपलबध कर विं प्रा थी हरद्थी हरदी। इसक के बं प्राथी हरद 15 लं प्राख रर पश विक्त क के रूपर के वि भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज केद विं प्रां प्रा थी हरद्थी हरदी गई सूचय निं प्रा ल केर य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि सगोहय निलं प्राल विहं प्रा सं स के चल केगर के। इसक के बं प्राथी हरद दथी हरदय निं प्रा संक 25.09.20 कगो थी हरद्बं प्रां प्रा य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा म केर के पं प्रासम केर के घर कं प्राय निप्र आरं प्रा और कहं प्रा कक आपक के द विं प्रां प्रा थी हरद्थी हरदी गई सूचय निं प्राओस के ाडपर्थी हरदी सं प्राहब सनक्तष्र य निह्थी हरदी सं ह्ए, आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री प विय नि क्मं प्राकगो ज विं प्राहर य निगर ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा, पुत्र शह पुत्र श्रीग संगं प्राय निगर ल के जं प्राय निं प्रा ह्थी हरदी पोड केगं प्रा। आपकगोअपय नि के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के प विय नि क्मं प्रा कगो बचं प्राय निं प्रा है क्तगो 25 लं प्राख ओर रूपर के क कीवर वित्र श्री सं प्रा कर विं प्रा थी हरदगो। इस पर मैय नि के कहं प्रा अभह पुत्र श्री इक्तय निह पुत्र श्री रं प्राहरदीपसश म केर के पं प्रासय निह्थी हरदी सं है मैय नि के कं प्राफ की हं प्रां प्रा जगोडह पुत्र श्री वि व विय निम्र ातय नि वि केथी हरदय नि ककरं प्रा क्तगो य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्राय नि के कहं प्रा कक आप अभह पुत्र श्री म्मुझ के 1 लं प्राख रूपर के थी हरद केथी हरदगो क्तगो मै आपकगो 25लं प्राख रूपर के करय नि के क के हरदीपसलए 15.10.20 क्तक कं प्रा समर दथी हरदल विं प्रा थी हरदू संगं प्रा।इस पर मैय नि के य निर केश क्मं प्रा क के कह के अय नि्सं प्रा प विय नि क्मं प्रा क के गगरफक्तं प्रा्थी हरदीक के डर स के 1 लं प्राख रूपर के और रर पश विक्त रं प्राहरदीपसश य निर केश क्मं प्रा कगो उसह पुत्र श्रीसमर घर म स के लं प्राकर थी हरद के थी हरद्थी हरदी और य निगोदरस कं प्रा ातय नि वि केथी हरदय नि ककरं प्रा क्तगोउसय नि के म्मुझ के य निगोदरस क्रमं प्रा संक 4236 दथी हरदय निं प्रा संक 13.09.20 जगो रं प्रा ज केशक्मं प्रा प्हरदीपसलस इ संत्र श्री सप केरर प्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ज विं प्राहर य निगर पुत्र शह पुत्र श्रीग संगं प्राय निगर क केहत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर क की ह्ई क की फगोरगो पातक्त थी हरद्थी हरदी जगो म आपकगो ररपगोरयु क के सं प्राअपय नि के हत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर करक के थी हरद के रहं प्रा हू सं। इस पकं प्रा पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के 25लं प्राख ओर रर पश विक्त रं प्राहरदीपसश क के हरदीपसलए 15. 10.20 क्तक कं प्रा समर थी हरद केदथी हरदं प्रा। मै पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि ्रारं प्राय नि के क के अगधकं प्राररन्हों कगो ओर 25 लं प्राखरूपर के रर पश विक्त क के य निह्थी हरदी सं थी हरद केय निं प्रा चं प्राहक्तं प्रा हू सं। इसहरदीपसलए मै आ ज आपक की शरणम आरं प्रा हू सं म्मुझ के नरं प्रा दथी हरदल विं प्राय नि के क की क पं प्रा करं प्रा वि । म केर्थी हरदी वि म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री जप विय नि क्मं प्रा क की य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि उय निक के अगधकं प्राररन्हों स के कगोई प्रं प्राय निह पुत्र श्रीर सं ज जश य निह्थी हरदी सं है और य नि ह्थी हरदी कगोई पू वियु कं प्रा ल केय नि-थी हरद केय नि बकं प्रां प्रा है. मै य निर केशमह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि प्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ज विं प्राहरय निगर ग संगं प्राय निगर क के त्र श्री सॉफ क के बह पुत्र श्रीच पहल केकगोई जं प्राय नि-पहचं प्राय नि य निह्थी हरदी सं है। मै इय निकगो रर पश विक्त क के 25 लं प्राख रूपर के औरय निह्थी हरदी सं थी हरद केय निं प्रा चं प्राहक्तं प्रा हू सं। उस के रर पश विक्त ल के के र संग के हं प्रान्हों पकड विं प्राय निं प्रा चं प्राहक्तं प्रा हू सं।म केर्थी हरदी ररपगोरयु पर उगचक्त कं प्राय निूय निह पुत्र श्री कं प्रायु विं प्राह्थी हरदी कर विं प्राय नि के क की क पं प्रा करं प्रा वि ।"

Thereafter, the trap proceedings were conducted on 26.10.2020.

3. On the basis of aforesaid typed report and the trapproceedings, an FIR No. 245/2020 was registered at PoliceStation CPS, Jaipur, District ACB, Jodhpur for offences u/S7 of amendment Act of 2018 read-with Section 120-B IPC.

4. Counsel for the accused petitioner submitted thaton the basis of aforesaid typed report, the ACB startedinvestigation. He further submitted that it is alleged that on22.10.2020, the accused petitioner met with the complainantat Delhi and accepted Rs.2,000/- cash for providing furtherextension of time to arrange the bribe money. Thereafter, theACB team conducted a trap proceeding on 26.10.2020 duringwhich the petitioner is alleged to have accepted Rs.10 lacscash from the complainant as a bribe and the bribe moneywas recovered from the custody of the complainant and notfrom the accused petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner furthersubmitted that apart from this, neither any amount was givenby the complainant nor accepted by the petitioner as a bribeand at the same time, co-accused-Rajesh Kumar Sihag-Police Inspector who is also alleged to have made a demandof bribe, has been given a clean chit by A.C.B. despite that inN.D.P.S. Act related case, the investigation can be made byan officer not below the rank of Police Inspector. As such, nocase under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out, even prima facie and the entire allegations againstthe petitioner are groundless and without any legal basis.

6. Counsel further submitted that the InvestigatingOfficer of Anti Corruption Bureau submitted a letteraddressed to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagarseeking prosecution sanction against the accused petitioneralong-with a format of prosecution sanction enclosedtherewith.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the S.P., SriGanganagar, without having regard to the provisions of lawand material available on the record and without affordingany opportunity of hearing to the accused petitioner,accorded the prosecution sanction against the accusedpetitioner in a mechanical and stereo typed manner withoutapplication of mind by merely filling in the blanks in theformat of prosecution sanction as submitted by the AntiCorruption Bureau and getting it retyped by adding a line thatthe case was also discussed with the Investigating Officer.Counsel further submitted that a perusal of the format ofprosecution sanction provided by the Anti Corruption Bureauand the impugned prosecution sanction would reveal thatboth are verbatim same except the name, post anddepartment of the sanctioning authority. In the facts of thepresent case, the entire action of the sanctioning authority is, thus, contrary to the spirit of law and the prosecutionsanction accorded by him is vitiated on account of nonapplication of mind.

8. Counsel further submitted that after obtaining theprosecution sanction and completing the investigation in acursory and superficial manner, the A.C.B. submitted thecharge-sheet in the matter against the accused petitioner foroffences u/s 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 read-withSection 120B I.P.C. in the Court of learned Special Judge,Court of Session, Prevention of Corruption, No. 1, Jaipuralong-with the prosecution sanction while keeping theinvestigation pending u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. against Rajesh Sihagand Sohan Lal.

9. Counsel further submitted that upon submission ofthe charge-sheet, the learned trial Court took cognizanceagainst the petitioner considering the prosecution sanction foroffences u/s 7 P.C. of the amendment Act of 2018 read-withSection 120-B I.P.C vide order dated 04.01.2021.

10. Counsel also submitted that the prosecutionsanction dated 19.12.2020 is patently illegal, unjust andimproper, therefore, no consequential proceedings includingthe cognizance order dated 04.01.2021 in furtherance thereofcan be allowed to sustain.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Stateopposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearingfor the accused petitioner and submitted that the prosecutionsanctioning authority after examining the entire relevantmaterial which was made available by the InvestigatingAgency which he collected during the course of investigation,accorded prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner.Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court in thismatter.

12. Considered the submissions advanced by counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, learned PublicProsecutor appearing for the State and minutely andmeticulously examined the complete material which wasmade available to the Court.

13. The first and foremost submission of the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner is that theSuperintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar who issued theprosecution sanction as against the petitioner vide orderdated 19.12.2020 is ad-verbatim of the Draft sent by theACB, Jodhpur and there is no due application of mind of theProsecution Sanctioning Authority. In this regard, onextensive scrutiny of the material available on record, theCourt finds that during trap proceedings before registration ofthe case, the ACB observed as under:- bl izdkj vc rd dh xbZ mijksDr dk;Zokgh ,oa ekSds ij rS;kjdh xbZ QnkZr ls vkjksih Jh ujs'k pan eh.kk dkfu- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuktokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj o Jh jkts'k dqekj fl;kx fujh{kdiqfyl] Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj us ,djk; gksdj vkilh feyh&Hkxr dj "kM~;U= jpdj ifjoknh Jh gjnhiflago mlds Hkrhts Jh iou dqekj vjksMk ds uke ukp?kj fcjguk jksMdkuiqj mRrj izns'k esa Jh xq: rsxcgknqj QkekZ uked nqdku gSA iqfylFkkuk lnj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj esa ntZ ,Mhih,l ,DV ds eqdnek ua-224@20 ftldh tkap Jh jkts'k dqekj fl;kx Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuktokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj }kjk dh tk jgh gS] ifjoknh dh QeZ dhdksbZ Hkwfedk Li"V ugha gksus ds ckotwn ifjoknh dh QeZ Jh xq:rsxcgknqj QkekZ ds fo#) 91 lhvkjihlh dk uksfVl tkjh dj vuqla/kkuds uke ij Mjk /kedkdj ifjoknh gjnhiflag ls Vªsi dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ1602000 :- ysuk rFkk Vªsi dk;Zokgh nkSjku ifjoknh ls 10 yk[k :i;svkjksih ujs'k pUn eh.kk us vius fy, o Jh jkts'k dqekj fujh{kd iqfylFkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj Jhxaxkuxj ds fy, crkSj fj'orjkf'k ysuk c[kwch izekf.kr ik;k x;kA

vr% vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn eh.kk iq= Hkjkslh yky eh.kk mez 34 o"kZfuoklh xzke feyd ljk; rglhy uknkSrh ftyk djkSyh gky fuoklhDokVZj ua- 329 iqfyl ykbZu Jhxaxkuxj gky dkfuLVscy ua- 1393 iqfylFkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj us Jh jkts'k dqekj fl;kx fuoklhlksuklj ftyk >qa>uq gky fujh{kd iqfyl] Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuktokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj dk mDr d`R; tqeZ vUrxZr /kkjk 7Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e&2018 o 120ch Hkk-na-la- esan.Muh; gksus ls buds fo:) fcuk uEcjh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ okLrsdzekadu izsf"kr gSA

14. The aforesaid conclusion clearly speaks that thepetitioner has been found to be involved in a criminal act inconspiracy with co-accused Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Inspector ofPolice, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar who wasthe Investigating Officer of the concerned criminal case.

15. After completion of the investigation the ACBrecorded its conclusion as under:-

laiw.kZ vuqla/kku ls vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn eh.kk iq= Hkjkslh ykyeh.kk mez 34 o"kZ fuoklh xzke feyd ljk; rglhy uknkSrh ftykdjkSyh gky fuoklh DokVZj ua- 329 iqfyl ykbZu Jhxaxkuxj gkydkfuLVscy ua- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj dsfo:) tqeZ /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 o 120ch Hkk-n-l- dk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ik;k x;k gSAizdj.k gktk dh iz0lw0fj0 esa of.kZr vkjksih Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kdiqfyl] Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ls Vªsidk;Zokgh fo:) Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu0 1393 ds nkSjku fnukad 26-10-2020 dks nkSjkus fj'or jkf'k ysu&nsu ds oDr Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kkdkfu0 1393 dks Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl dks Hksts x;sokV~l,i eSlst ^^lj 15 dh ckr dj ds 10 ns jgk gS] vkSj vkxs dsfy, vkSj dqN ls euk dj jgk gS D;k d:** dks ns[kus ds ckn dkfu-o Fkkukf/kdkjh nksuks ds chp gqbZ okV~l,i okW;l okrkZ ds vuqlkjvkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 }kjk Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kdiqfyl dk dkuiqj okyh ikVhZ ds t;iqj esa vkus o u[kjs uq[kjs djusdh ckr dgus ij Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu0dks okil Fkkus vkus dk dguk o dkuiqj okyh ikVhZ ¼ifjoknh½ dks Qzhdjus dh ckr dgus ds lk{; ds laca/k esa r¶rh'k 'ks"k gSaA Jhlksguyky l-m-fu-iq- fnukad 17-09-2020 dks vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kkdkfu- 1393 ds lkFk dkuiqj x;k Fkk] ml oDr dkuiqj esa gksVyfxfrdk xSysDlh esa ifjoknh gjnhiflag us vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kkdkfu- dks 15 yk[k :i;s dh fj'or nsuk vius izLrqr ifjokn o viusdFkuksa esa crk;k gSaA ftl laca/k esa l-m-fu-iq- ls r¶rh'k 'ks"k gSaA Jhjkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-iq- iqfyl Fkkuktokgj uxj dks vuqla/kku gsrq ryc fd;k x;k] ijUrq gSaA Jh jkts'kflgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m--fu-iq- vuqla/kku gsrqmifLFkr ugha vk;s gSA izdj.k dk vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu-1393 dk tekur vkosnu ekuuh; fof'k"B U;k;ky;] Hk-fu-vf/kfu;edz&1 egkuxj t;iqj }kjk [kkfjt fd;k tkus ls vfHk;qDr orZeku esa dsUnzh; dkjkx`g t;iqj esa U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksus o izdj.k esa fnukad23-12-2020 dks bZYrck gksus ds dkj.k Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393ds fo:) vkjksi i= ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ;fy;k x;k gSaA Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-iq- iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ls vuqla/kku visf{kr gksus ds dkj.k Jhjkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-iq- ds fo:)vuqla/kku /kkjk 173¼8½ tk-QkS- esa iSf.Max j[kk x;k gSaA

Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftykJhxaxkuxj ds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd] ftykJhxaxkuxj ls muds i=kad va&24¼ ½ xaxk@vi@vfHk-@2020@1678fnukad 19-12-2020 ds }kjk izkIr gqbZ gSaA

vr% pktZ'khV la[;k---233-----@ 2020 fnukad 21-12-2020 fo:) Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk iq= Hkjkslh yky eh.kk mez 34 o"kZ fuoklh xzke feyd ljk;rglhy uknkSrh ftyk djkSyh gky fuoklh DokVZj ua- 329 iqfyl ykbZuJhxaxkuxj gky dkfuLVscy ua- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ds fo:) tqeZ /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018o 120 ch Hkk-n-l- esa cgSfl;r izHkkjh vf/kdkjh] Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kdC;wjksa&,l-;w- tks/kiqj jkT; ljdkj dh foKIrh la[;kF.14/1/4/HA/57fnukad 15-07-1957 esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dsvuqlj.k esa Jheku fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] ls'ku U;k;ky;] Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.kvf/kfu;e] dze&1 t;iqj egkuxj dh lsok esa izsf"kr dj fuosnu gSa fdvfHk;qDr ds fo:) dkuwuh lywd QjekosaA

16. On the basis of the said conclusion of the ACB theDraft Prosecution Sanction was sent by the Dy. DirectorGeneral of Police, ACB, Jodhpur, along-with the letter dated17.12.2020 (Annex.2 to the petition) to the Superintendentof Police, Sri Ganganagar, who is Competent Authority toissue the prosecution sanction as regards the petitioner whowas posted as a Constable. The Prosecution SanctioningAuthority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagarissued the prosecution sanction against the petitioner on 19.12.2020 (Annex.3 to the petition). On perusal of the Draftof the prosecution sanction as well as the order ofprosecution sanction, the Court finds substance in thesubmission of the counsel appearing for the accusedpetitioner that the order of the prosecution sanction is ad-verbatim to same that of the Draft of the prosecutionsanction forwarded to the Prosecution Sanctioning Authorityby the ACB. It is found that even the incorrect dates asregards the trap proceedings i.e. 17.09.2020 as mentioned inthe Draft has been copied in the prosecution sanction order,which goes to show that the Prosecution SanctioningAuthority has not even cared to correct the mistake and theallegations of the counsel for the accused petitioner is thatthe Prosecution Sanctioning Authority had not applied hismind, holds substance. The Prosecution Sanctioning Authorityhas copied the Draft of the prosecution sanction and hasordered to issue the prosecution sanction vide impugnedorder dated 19.12.2020 observing that the ACB has found theallegations proved against the petitioner. It has also beenmentioned that he has discussed with the InvestigatingOfficer as regards the evidence collected by him during thecourse of investigation but nothing has been mentioned thatwhat are those evidence which persuaded him to issue theprosecution sanction against the petitioner and how thepetitioner was connected with the investigation of the case in regard to which there is allegation of demand of bribe.Whether the petitioner was in position to help thecomplainant?

17. The basic object of seeking the prosecutionsanction to prosecute a public servant is to avoid unnecessaryinterference in the internal functioning of a department bysome other agency. It is the concerned AdministrativeDepartment (i.e. Police Department in this case) which knowswhether an employee / Officer working there is competent inany manner in the matter to help or cause harm to thecomplainant. The Prosecution Sanctioning Authority has noteven cared to give due consideration to the fact that no workor proceedings were pending before the petitioner who isposted as a Constable for which he could make a demand.The accused petitioner has also been implicated as anaccused with the aid of provisions of section 120B IPC. It issurprising to note that the person i.e. the Inspector of Police-Rajesh Kumar Sihag who was assigned the investigation of amatter related to Narcotic Drugs, which is said to be thecause of demand, has been given a clean chit and in suchsituation the charge-sheet has been filed only against thepetitioner, whereas to prosecute a person for the offencepunishable under section 120B IPC there must be two ormore accused.

18. As regards the requirement of application of mindof the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority at the time ofissuance of prosecution sanction, following judgments of theHon’ble Apex Court, the Division Bench of the Principal Seatat Jodhpur and Coordinate Bench of this Court, are beingtaken into consideration:- A.Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok KumarAggarwal & one other connected matter, reported in(2014) 14 SCC 295, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court inparas 13, 14, 15 and 16 has observed as under:- “13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court thatat the time of sending the matter for grant ofsanction by the competent authority, adequatematerial for such grant was made available to thesaid authority. This may also be evident from thesanction order, in case it is extremelycomprehensive, as all the facts and circumstancesof the case may be spelt out in the sanctionorder. However, in every individual case, thecourt has to find out whether there has been anapplication of mind on the part of the sanctioningauthority concerned on the material placed beforeit. It is so necessary for the reason that there isan obligation on the sanctioning authority todischarge its duty to give or withhold sanctiononly after having full knowledge of the materialfacts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mereformality. Therefore, the provisions in regard tothe sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest andthe protection available to the accused againstwhom the sanction is sought.

14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts thebar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not anacrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanctact which affords protection to the governmentservant against frivolous prosecution. Further, itis a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecutionand is a safeguard for the innocent, though not ashield for the guilty.

15. Consideration of the material impliesapplication of mind. Therefore, the order ofsanction must ex facie disclose that thesanctioning authority had considered the evidenceand other material placed before it. In everyindividual case, the prosecution has to establishand satisfy the court by leading evidence thatthose facts were placed before the sanctioningauthority and the authority had applied its mindon the same. If the sanction order on its faceindicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR,disclosure statements, recovery memos, draftcharge-sheet and other materials on record wereplaced before the sanctioning authority and if it isfurther discernible from the recital of the sanctionorder that the sanctioning authority perused allthe material, an inference may be drawn that thesanction had been granted in accordance withlaw. This becomes necessary in case the court isto examine the validity of the order of sanctioninter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind.(Vide Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. R.[(1947-48) 75 IA 30 : (1948) 61 LW 257 : AIR1948 PC 82]; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab[AIR 1958 SC 124 : 1958 Cri LJ 265] , Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. [(1979) 4 SCC 172 :1979 SCC (Cri) 926], State v. KrishanchandKhushalchand Jagtiani [(1996) 4 SCC 472 : 1996SCC (Cri) 755], State of Punjab v. Mohd. IqbalBhatti [(2009) 17 SCC 92 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)949], Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State [(2011)6 SCC 1 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 782] and State ofMaharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain [(2013) 8 SCC119 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 515 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 85] .)

16. In view of the above, the legal propositionscan be summarised as under:

16.1. The prosecution must send the entirerelevant record to the sanctioning authorityincluding the FIR, disclosure statements,statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draftcharge-sheet and all other relevant material. Therecord so sent should also contain thematerial/document, if any, which may tilt thebalance in favour of the accused and on the basisof which, the competent authority may refusesanction.

16.2. The authority itself has to do complete andconscious scrutiny of the whole record soproduced by the prosecution independentlyapplying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction whiledischarging its duty to give or withhold thesanction.

16.3. The power to grant sanction is to beexercised strictly keeping in mind the publicinterest and the protection available to theaccused against whom the sanction is sought.

16.4. The order of sanction should make itevident that the authority had been aware of allrelevant facts/materials and had applied its mindto all the relevant material.

16.5. In every individual case, the prosecutionhas to establish and satisfy the court by leadingevidence that the entire relevant facts had beenplaced before the sanctioning authority and theauthority had applied its mind on the same andthat the sanction had been granted in accordancewith law.”

B.State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, reported in

(2007) 11 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court inparas 9 and 10 has observed as under:- “9. We agree that an order of sanction should notbe construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is alsowell settled that the purpose for which an order ofsanction is required to be passed should always beborne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioningauthority is the best person to judge as to whetherthe public servant concerned should receive theprotection under the Act by refusing to accordsanction for his prosecution or not.

10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably,

application of mind on the part of the sanctioningauthority is imperative. The order grantingsanction must be demonstrative of the fact thatthere had been proper application of mind on thepart of the sanctioning authority. We have noticedhereinbefore that the sanctioning authority hadpurported to pass the order of sanction solely onthe basis of the report made by the InspectorGeneral of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. Even thesaid report has not been brought on record. Thus,whether in the said report, either in the bodythereof or by annexing therewith the relevantdocuments, IG Police, Karnataka Lokayukta hadplaced on record the materials collected oninvestigation of the matter which would primafacie establish existence of evidence in regard tothe commission of the offence by the publicservant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily,before passing an order of sanction, the entirerecords containing the materials collected againstthe accused should be placed before thesanctioning authority. In the event, the order ofsanction does not indicate application of mind as(sic to) the materials placed before the saidauthority before the order of sanction was passed,the same may be produced before the court toshow that such materials had in fact beenproduced.”

C.Harish Chandra Bunkar Balai Vs. Board ofRevenue, Ajmer & Ors., (D.B. Spl. Appl. WritNo.707/2023), decided on 18.10.2024, wherein the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, has observedin para 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under:- “10. A bare perusal of the above draft prosecution(as placed on record of the present appeal alongwith additional affidavit) and the order dated 28thJanuary 2015 makes it clear that the ordergranting prosecution sanction is a verbatimrepetition of the draft prosecution as furnished bythe ACB to the Collector, Banswara.

11. The order dated 28th January 2015 does notreflect any ground on the basis of which it can beconcluded that the sanctioning authority appliedhis independent mind before granting theprosecution sanction. In Babu Lal Vishnoi's case(supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reliedupon Subhash Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.590 of 2010, wherein it wasobserved as under:

"The authority competent to remove a publicservant from service is clothed with thepower to grant sanction for prosecution tosuch public servant by the Legislature with[2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] a definite intention as thatauthority being having administrative anddisciplinary control on the person concernedis in a position to assess and weigh theaccusation on basis of intimate knowledge ofthe work and conduct and also having day today knowledge of overall administrativeinterest of the department.

The sanction for prosecution represent adeliberate decision and that requiresobjective satisfaction of the competentauthority about a prima facie case against theperson facing accusation. The authoritycompetent while granting sanction is alsorequired to record reasons for launchingprosecution and is further required to specifyits need in public interest. This importantduty can be discharged only on independentapplication of mind to all the relevant facts onbasis of which prosecution is proposed.

If any extraneous pressure is mounted on theauthority competent then there shall be allchances of frivolous and maliciousprosecution. To maintain the spirit of theprovisions for the grant of sanction toprosecute a public servant, the authoritycompetent is required to act independently,objectively and with an intention for notsaving a culprit from prosecution but at thesame time with a view to afford a reasonableprotection to a public servant fromunnecessary harassment and undue hardshipthrough vexatious prosecution.

Keeping in mind, the above mentionedintention of the Legislature, Hon'ble SupremeCourt in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan(supra) authoritatively held that the ordergranting sanction must be demonstrative ofthe fact that there had been properapplication of mind on the part of thesanctioning authority. For the same reason, this Court too in the case of Kishan Lal(supra) held that the statutory power givento the authority competent is required to beexercised by the authority concerned and notby any body else."

12. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan &Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012, itwas held as under :

"As already stated, in the instant matter toothe sanction granted and the draft to grantsanction are ad verbatim same. The Director,Mines and Geology appears to have[2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section19of the Act of 1988 postulates absoluteauthority to grant sanction for prosecution tothe competent authority, as such, thecompetent authority is required to apply itsown mind by considering all relevant facts.The competent authority may availassistance of other persons, but in no case,any other authority can initiate the processof consideration for grant of sanction andinstruct the competent authority for grantingsanction. In the case in hand, theconsideration for grant of sanction, as amatter of fact, was initiated by the AntiCorruption Bureau by sending a draft forgranting sanction for prosecution. The AntiCorruption Bureau could have communicatedall relevant facts on the basis of whichprosecution sanction could have beengranted, but in no case, the Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecutionsanction under a proposed and drafteddocument. The prosecution sanction grantedin the instant matter by the Director, Minesand Geology, Udaipur under the letter dated18.10.2012 on face depicts non- applicationof mind and abdication of the powers by theAnti Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore,is illegal."

13. Applying the ratio of the above judgments tothe present case, we hold that the proposed draftdocument for grant of prosecution sanctionfurnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau to thesanctioning authority cannot be upheld in terms ofManish Mathur and is therefore declared illegal.”

D.Vijay Kumar Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan &Anr., (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.5351/2023)decided on 07.10.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench ofthis Court has observed as under:-

“It is an admitted position that for procuring thedrug license and cancellation of drug license,online procedure was prevailing at that timebecause deaprtment had started online processfrom September, 2017. Complainant very wellknew the online process. He had applied forcancellation of drug license online. So, there wasno need to prepare the file offline. InvestigatingAuthorities had not conducted the verification ofillegal demand in accordance with law and had notconducted any enquiry as to whether any workwas pending with the petitioner or not. It is also an admitted position that at the time of trapproceedings, no work was pending with thepetitioner from 17.12.2018 to 19.12.2018.Complainant first time applied for the drug licenseon 24.12.2018. Petitioner submitted a detailedrepresentation before the concerned authorities.Concerned authorities also admitted the fact thatno work was pending with the petitioner. Petitionerhad clearly stated that complainant had forcefullyput the tainted money in his pocket on account ofrivalry of the petitioner with Ranjeet Gurjar.Department had also admitted the rivalry of thepetitioner with [2024:RJ-JP:41711] (12 of 12)[CRLMP-5351/2023] Ranjeet Gurjar. RanjeetGurjar is the friend of the complainant KuldeepSingh. In the present case, prosecution failed toestablish that there was any demand andacceptance of the bribe. Mere recovery of taintedmoney does not attract the offence against thepetitioner under Sections 7,13(1)(d)/13(2)of theAct of 1988 because prosecution had to establishthe fact that work was pending with the petitionerand petitioner had demanded the tainted moneyfor doing work. Competent authority beforegranting the prosecution sanction had not appliedindependent mind. So, I deem it fit to quash andset aside the order of the prosecution sanctiondated 23.06.2021 issued against the petitioner bythe Deputy Secretary (A-3), Department OfPersonnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.”

19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is only aConstable and was not assigned any investigation of the casewhere he could help or cause harm to the complainant.

20. The another submission made by the counselappearing for the accused petitioner is that the entire casereflected from the charge-sheet is that the accused petitionerwas acting with conspiracy with co-accused Rajesh KumarSihag, CI and Sohanlal, ASI.

The another submission made by the counsel

21. The police while submitting the charge-sheetagainst the petitioner, kept the investigation pending undersection 173(8) CrPC as regards the involvement of RajeshKumar Sihag, CI and Sohanlal, ASI, as has been quoted inthe foregoing para.

The police while submitting the charge-sheet

22. After completion of the investigation as regards co-accused Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Inspector of Police, the matterwas sent for prosecution sanction against him. The DirectorGeneral of Police after taking into consideration the evidencecollected during investigation issued the prosecution sanctionvide order dated 31.12.2021 to prosecute Rajesh KumarSihag, Inspector of Police for the offence punishable undersection 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 and section 120BIPC. In the prosecution sanction order dated 31.12.2021 asregards Rajesh Kumar Sihag, C.I., the Prosecution After completion of the investigation as regards co- Sanctioning Authority i.e. the Director General of Police hasobserved as under:-

esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd vkjksih Jh jkts'k dqekj flgkxiqfyl fujh{kd }kjk tfj;s uksfVl /kkjk 91 tk-QkS- ifjoknh gjnhiflag ds Hkrhts dh QeZ xq: rst cgknqj QkekZ] dkuiqj ls tCr dh xbZnokbZ VscysV VªksekMksy gkbZMªks DyksjkbZV 100 ,e-th- dh lIykbZ dslaca/k esa miyC/k djokbZ xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij ifjoknh gjnhi flagds Hkrhts dh QeZ xq: rst cgknqj QkekZ] dkuiqj ds fo:) dksbZvijk/k cuuk ugha ik;k tkus ds dkj.k gh mlus vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUndkfu- dks gjnhi flag ds ikl ,oa mlds Hkrhts dh QeZ ij fj'orjkf'k ysus gsrq fHktokus dh laHkkoujk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkAD;ksafd mDr izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr Vªsi dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku fnukad 26-10-2020 dks vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgjuxj }kjk Vªsi vf/kdkjh dks iwNus ij ;g rF; crkuk fd ^^lj xyrhgks xbZ] eSa vHkh vkids lkeus ifjoknh ls fj'or jkf'k ysus ds laca/k esaJh jkts'k dqekj lh-vkbZ- lkgc ds OgkVl,si uEcj [REDACTED] ijvius OgkVl,si ua- [REDACTED] ls fgUnh esa pSfVax dj voxr djokldrk gw¡A** vkfn rF; Vªsi vf/kdkjh dks :c: ekSrfcjku ,oa ifjoknhJh gjnhi flag ds le{k crkus ij Vªsi vf/kdkjh }kjk le; 8-13ih-,e- ij vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn dkfu- ds eksckbZy Qksu ds Lihdj dksvkWu djokdj OgkVl,si eksckby ua- [REDACTED] ls vkjksih Jh jkts'kdqekj flgkx iqfyl fujh{kd ds OgkVl,si eksckbZy ua- [REDACTED] ijokrkZyki djokbZ xbZ] rc mä nksuksa ds e/; fuEukuqlkj okrkZyki gksukQnZ VªkalfLØIV esa vafdr rF;ksa ls ik;k x;k gSA

vr% eSa ,e-,y- ykBj] egkfuns'kd iqfyl] jktLFkku] tks mDrJh jkts'k dqekj flgkx iq= Jh jkedqekj flag fuoklh flgkxks dh<k.kh rglhy o ftyk >qU>quw gky fuoklh v'kksd uxj] lksukljrglhy eylhlj] iqfyl Fkkuk lnj >qU>quw ftyk >qU>quw gky iqfylfujh{kd rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj fuyafcr eq[;ky; iqfyl ykbZu] dksVk 'kgj dk fu;ksDrkizkf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k mlds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr tkjh djus esa l{ke gw¡A vuqla/kku ds nkSjku /kkjk 161 lh-vkj-ih-lh ds vUrxZrfy;s x;s c;kuksa] ,df=r leLr lk{;ksa ,oa bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oaifjfLFkfr;ksa ds iw.kZ ,oa lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu ,oa euu djus rFkkvuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj foe'kZ djus ds mijkUr Jh jkts'k dqekjflgkx] iqfyl fujh{kd }kjk vkjksfir vijk/;k djuk ik;s tkus ijHkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 19 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dsvuqlj.k esa Jh jkts'k dqekj flgkx] iqfyl fujh{kd] rRdkyhuFkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj] ftyk Jh xaxkuxj] gkyfuyafcr eq[;ky; iqfyl ykbZu] dksVk 'kgj ds fo:) /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkjfuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 ,oa /kkjk 120ch Hkkjrh; n.Mlafgrk esa rFkk mijksDr rF; ij fof/k ds vU; micU/kksa ds v/khun.Muh; vijk/k ds fy;s ekuuh; fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] lS'ku U;k;ky;Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] Ø- l- 01 t;iqj vFkok fdlh vU; l{keU;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksx pykus gsrq vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ,rn~ }kjk iznkudjrk gw¡A

23. After issuance of the prosecution sanction againstRajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector, the ACB vide orderdated 03.11.2022 issued by the Office of the Addl.Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Churu,closed the investigation pending under section 173(8) CrPCas regards the involvement of Rajesh Kumar Sihag, PoliceInspector and Sohanlal, Sub Inspector Police and alsoobserved that the charge-sheet filed against the accusedpetitioner be treated as a complete charge-sheet. Therelevant portion of the order dated 03.11.2022 is quoted asunder:-

lEiw.kZ vuqla/kku ls Li"V gS fd vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn dkfu- }kjk iz-lw-la- 224@2020 Fkkuk lnj Jhxaxkuxj dh vuqla/kku i=koyh ls dsl Mk;jh dk pksjh Nqis voyksdu dj fy;k] ftlls bls laKku esa vk x;k fddkuiqj okyh dEiuh ds ekfyd dks eqfYte ugha ekuk x;k blfy, mlusvius Lrj ij gh dkuiqj okyh ikVhZ ls okrkZ ;k ckrphr dj voS/k :i lsjkf'k izkIr dh xbZ gSA Jh ujs'kpUn dkfu- fnukad 22-10-2020 dks dkuiqjvkSj fnYyh x;k] ml nkSjku fnukad 21-10-2022 ls 04 fnu vkdfLedvodk'k esa x;k gqvk FkkA vodk'k ds nkSjku Hkh dkuiqj ;k fnYyh ls Jhjkts'k dqekj fujh{kd iqfyl ls fdlh Hkh ek/;e eksckbZy] yS.MykbZu ;kvU; fdlh Hkh rjhds ls dksbZ ckr Jh ujs'kpUn dkfu- ls ugha gqbZ FkhA Jhujs'kpUn dkfu- us tks Hkh voS/k d`R; fd;k mlesa Jh jkts'k dqekj fujh{kdiqfyl lafyIrrk ugha ikbZ xbZ gS] ;g d`R; mldh [kqn dh gh dk;Zokgh jghgSA

bl izdkj leLr vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gS fd dkfu ujs'k pUneh.kk iwoZ esa tkjh fd;s x;s uksfVl dh izfr djokdj vodk'k ysdj viusLrj ij gh ifjoknh gjnhi flag ls fj'or izkIr djus gsrq x;k gS rFkklhvkbZ o fMIVh dk uke ysdj ifjoknh gjnhi flag ls fj'or jkf'k izkIr dhgS] blesa Jh ujs'k pUn dkfu ds fdlh mPpkf/kdkjh dh Hkwfedk ugha ik;h xbZgSA

izdj.k esa 'ks"k rFkkdfFkr vkjksihx.k Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfylo Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-ds vijk/k esa lafyIr gksus ckcr vuqla/kku ls dksbZBksl lk{; ugha vkus ds dkj.k Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jhlksguyky l-m-fu- iqfyl Fkkuk tokgu uxj ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ tk-QkS-esa iSf.Max vuqla/kku dks can fd;k x;k gSaA vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa iwoZ esais'k dh xbZ pktZ'khV dks iw.kZ pktZ'khV ekuh tkosA

fjiksVZ voyksdukFkZ Jheku dh lsokesa is'k gSaA

24.

It is very surprising to note that even after seeking prosecution sanction against Rajesh Kumar Sihag, PoliceInspector, who was the Investigating Officer in the caseagainst the complainant, has been given a clean chit. Afterclosing of the case against Rajesh Kumar Sihar, PoliceInspector and against Sohanlal, Assistant Sub Inspector, nowthe criminal case is being proceeded only against the presentaccused petitioner for the offence under section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 and section 120B IPC. Initially, acharge-sheet after seeking prosecution sanction was filedagainst the petitioner observing that ‘he in conspiracy withother co-accused has demanded and accepted the moneyfrom the complainant’. The accused petitioner is a Constablewho is only to assist the Senior Officer/s in making theinvestigation in a criminal case. The investigation of thecriminal case registered under the NDPS Act against thefamily members of the complainant party, was assigned toRajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector because noinvestigation under the NDPS matters can be conducted byan Officer below the rank of Inspector, meaning-thereby theaccused petitioner has no authority to make any kind ofinvestigation in the NDPS matters. The investigation wasassigned to Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector. In such asituation the prosecution sanction against the accusedpetitioner under section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 isnot sustainable and further since the clean chit has beengiven by the ACB to the Police Inspector Rajesh Kumar Sihagand the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Sohanlal, only thepetitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishableunder section 120B IPC, as for prosecuting a person for theoffence under section 120B IPC, the accused must be two ormore.

25.

25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 234, has observed in paras 39, 40, 41 and42 as under:- “39. Section 120-B IPC is the provision whichprovides for punishment for criminal conspiracy.Definition of “criminal conspiracy” given in Section120-A reads as follows:

“120-A. When two or more personsagree to do, or cause to be done,—

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegalmeans, such an agreement is designated acriminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except anagreement to commit an offence shallamount to a criminal conspiracy unlesssome act besides the agreement is done byone or more parties to such agreement inpursuance thereof.”

40. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be : (a) an object to beaccomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodyingmeans to accomplish that object, (c) anagreement or understanding between two or moreof the accused persons whereby they becomedefinitely committed to cooperate for theaccomplishment of the object by the meansembodied in the agreement, or by any effectualmeans, (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminalconspiracy is the unlawful combination andordinarily the offence is complete when thecombination is framed. From this it necessarilyfollows that unless the statute so requires, noovert act need be done in furtherance of theconspiracy, and that the object of the combinationneed not be accomplished, in order to constitutean indictable offence. Law making conspiracy acrime is designated to curb immoderate power todo mischief which is gained by a combination ofthe means. The encouragement and support whichco-conspirators give to one another renderingenterprises possible which, if left to individualeffort, would have been impossible, furnish theground for visiting conspirators and abettors withcondign punishment. The conspiracy is held to becontinued and renewed as to all its memberswherever and whenever any member of theconspiracy acts in furtherance of the commondesign. (See American Jurisprudence, Vol. II,Section 23, p. 559.) For an offence punishableunder Section 120-B, the prosecution need notnecessarily prove that the perpetrators expresslyagree to do or cause to be done an illegal act; theagreement may be proved by necessaryimplication. Offence of criminal conspiracy has itsfoundation in an agreement to commit an offence.A conspiracy consists not merely in the intentionof two or more, but in the agreement of two ormore to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. Solong as such a design rests in intention only, it isnot indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an actof each of the parties, promise against promise,actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, iflawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for useof criminal means.

41. No doubt, in the case of conspiracy therecannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients ofoffence are that there should be an agreementbetween persons who are alleged to conspire andthe said agreement should be for doing an illegalact or for doing by illegal means, an act whichitself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence ofcriminal conspiracy is an agreement to do anillegal act and such an agreement can be provedeither by direct evidence or by circumstantialevidence or by both, and it is a matter of commonexperience that direct evidence to proveconspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, thecircumstances proved before, during and after theoccurrence have to be considered to decide aboutthe complicity of the accused.

42. In Halsbury's Laws of England (vide 4th Edn.,Vol. 11, p. 44, para 58), the English law as toconspiracy has been stated thus:

“58. Conspiracy consists in the agreementof two or more persons to do an unlawfulact, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.It is an indictable offence at common law,the punishment for which is imprisonmentor fine or both in the discretion of the court.

The essence of the offence of conspiracy isthe fact of combination by agreement. Theagreement may be express or implied, or inpart express and in part implied. Theconspiracy arises and the offence iscommitted as soon as the agreement ismade; and the offence continues to becommitted so long as the combinationpersists, that is until the conspiratorialagreement is terminated by completion of itsperformance or by abandonment orfrustration or however, it may be. The actusreus in a conspiracy is the agreement toexecute the illegal conduct, not theexecution of it. It is not enough that two ormore persons pursued the same unlawfulobject at the same time or in the sameplace; it is necessary to show a meeting ofminds, a consensus to effect an unlawfulpurpose. It is not, however, necessary thateach conspirator should have been incommunication with every other.”

26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Balla alias Farhatvs. State of Madhya Pradesh & one other connectedmatter, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1019 hasobserved in para 8 as under:- “8. As regards the conviction of accused no. 5 --Balla @ Farhat under Section 120B of IPC isconcerned, we find that the High Court has setaside the conviction of all six other accusedpersons under Section 120B and accused no. 5 -Balla @ Farhat is the only accused who has been convicted for the offence under Section 120-B.The ground on which he was convicted was thathe was the only person who knew about theavailability of huge amounts of money in the-Truck. Section 120A of the IPC defines criminalconspiracy. An agreement by two or threepersons is required to constitute a criminalconspiracy. There cannot be a conspiracy by onlyone accused, and it is necessary for the-applicability of Section 120B of the IPC that theremust be two or more persons agreeing for thepurpose of the conspiracy. This proposition of lawfinds support in a decision of a Bench of threeHon'ble Judges of this Court in Topandas v. TheState of Bombay. Therefore, the conviction ofaccused no. 5 - Balla @ Farhat for the offence-under Section 120B of the IPC cannot besustained.”

27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Topandas vs. State of Bombay, reported in 1955 SC OnLine SC 33 hasobserved in paras 6 to 13 as under:- “6. Criminal conspiracy has been defined inSection 120-A of the Indian Penal Code:“Whentwo or more persons agree to do or cause to bedone (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is notillegal by illegal means, such an agreement isdesignated a criminal conspiracy”. By the terms ofthe definition itself there ought to be two or morepersons who must be parties to such anagreement and it is trite to say that one personalone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannotconspire with oneself. If, therefore, 4 namedindividuals were charged with having committedthe offence under Section 120-B of the IndianPenal Code, and if three out of these 4 wereacquitted of the charge, the remaining accused,who was the Accused 1 in the case before us,could never be held guilty of the offence ofcriminal conspiracy.

7. If authority for the above proposition wereneeded, it is to be found in Archbold's CriminalPleading, Evidence and Practice, 33rd Edn., p.201, para 361:—

“Where several prisoners are includedin the same indictment, the jury mayfind one guilty and acquit the others,and vice versa. But if several areindicted for a riot, and the jury acquitall but two, they must acquit those twoalso, unless it is charged in theindictment, and proved, that theycommitted the riot together with someother person not tried upon thatindictment. 2 Hawk. c. 47. s. 8. And, ifupon an indictment for a conspiracy,the jury acquit all the prisoners butone, they must acquit that one also,unless it is charged in the indictment,and proved, that he conspired withsome other person not tried upon thatindictment. 2 Hawk. c. 47. s. 8; 3 Chit.Cr. L., (2nd Ed.) 1141; R. v. Thompson [16 QBD 832] , R. v. Manning [12 QBD

241] , R. v. Plummer [(1902) 2 KB339] .”

8. King v. Plummer [(1902) 2 KB 339] which iscited in support of this proposition was a case inwhich, on a trial of indictment charging threepersons jointly with conspiring together, oneperson had pleaded guilty and a judgment passedagainst him, and the other two were acquitted. Itwas held that the judgment passed against onewho had pleaded guilty was bad and could notstand. Lord Justice Wright observed at p. 343:

“There is much authority to the effectthat, if the appellant had pleaded notguilty to the charge of conspiracy, andthe trial of all three defendantstogether had proceeded on thatcharge, and had resulted in theconviction of the appellant and theacquittal of the only alleged co-conspirators, no judgment could havebeen passed on the appellant, becausethe verdict must have been regardedas repugnant in finding that there wasa criminal agreement between theappellant and the others and nonebetween them and him : see Harison v.Errington [ ((Popham, 202))] , whereupon an indictment of three for riot twowere found not guilty and one guilty,and upon error brought it was held a“void verdict”, and said to be “like to the case in 11 Hen. 4c. 2, conspiracy against two, and only one of them isfound guilty, it is void, for one alonecannot conspire”.

9. Lord Justice Bruce at p. 347 quoted withapproval the statement in Chitty's Criminal Law, 2nd Edn. Vol. iii, p. 1141:

“And it is holden that if all thedefendantsmentionedintheindictment, except one, are acquitted,and it is not stated as a conspiracy withcertainpersonsunknown,the conviction of the single defendant willbe invalid, and no judgment can bepassed upon him.”

10. The following observations made by LordJustice Bruce are apposite in the context beforeus:

“The point of the passage turns uponthe circumstance that the defendantsare included in the same indictment,and I think it logically follows from thenature of the offence of conspiracy that,where two or more persons are chargedin the same indictment with conspiracywith one another, and the indictmentcontains no charge of their conspiringwith other persons not named in theindictment, then, if all but one of thepersons named in the indictment areacquitted, no valid judgment can bepassed upon the one remaining person,

whether he has been convicted by theverdict of a jury or upon his ownconfession, because, as the record ofconviction can only be made up in theterms of the indictment, it would beinconsistent and contradictory and sobad on its face. The gist of the crime ofconspiracy is that two or more personsdid combine, confederate, and agreetogether to carry out the object of theconspiracy.”

11. This position has also been accepted in India.In Gulab Singh v. Emperor [AIR 1916 All 141]Justice Knox followed the case of King v. Plummer[(1902) 2 KB 339] and held that “it is necessary ina prosecution for conspiracy to prove that therewere two or more persons agreeing for thepurpose of conspiracy” and that “there could notbe a conspiracy of one”.

12. To similar effect was the judgment in King-Emperor v. Osman Sardar [AIR 1924 Call 809]where Chief Justice Sanderson observed that “thegist of an offence under Section 120-B was analleged agreement between the two accused andwhen the jury found that one of them was not aparty to the agreement and acquitted him of thatcharge, it followed as a matter of course that theother accused could not be convicted of thatcharge. The assent of both of them was necessaryto constitute the agreement which was the basis ofthe charge”.

28.

13. Ratanlal in his Law of Crimes, 18th Edn., p.270, has summarised the position as it emergesfrom the above two cases in the manner following:

“Where, therefore, three persons werecharged with having entered into aconspiracy, and two of them were acquitted,the third person could not be convicted ofconspiracy whether the conviction be uponthe verdict of a jury or upon his ownconfession”.”

The another submission made by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner is that the essentialingredients of provisions of section 7 of the amendment Actof 2018 to prosecute the petitioner are missing. There is nopending of work with the accused petitioner. The accusedpetitioner is simply a Constable posted at a particular PoliceStation. The investigation of a criminal case registered underthe provisions of the NDPS Act could only be investigated bya person not below the rank of a Police Inspector. Theinvestigation of the criminal case against the complainantparty was assigned to Rajesh Kumar Sihag, the PoliceInspector. The only work assigned to the accused petitionerwas to serve the notice. It has also been submitted by thecounsel appearing for the accused petitioner that the nephewof the complainant namely; Pawan Kumar Arora, who was anaccused in the NDPS matter has already been exoneratedduring the course of investigation as is clear from the closure report dated 03.11.2022 and in such circumstances it cannotbe said that any work was pending for which the accusedpetitioner can make a demand. The Coordinate Bench of thePrincipal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Mahendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. CriminalRevision Petition No.281/2023) decided on 28.8.2024has observed in para 9 as under:-

“9. Evidently, the record reveals that no work ofthe complainant was pending with the departmentwhat to say with the petitioner on the date ofmaking of the complaint and on the date ofmanaging trap, therefore, important ingredient ofthe offence for which charges have been framed ismissing to the extent that any work was pendingwith the public servant. Recovery of each andevery money on trap would not satisfy therequirement of gratification unless the money wasbeing paid for discharge of official duty pendingwith the accused.”

Further, the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Rajesh Kumar Meel vs. State ofRajasthan & Anr.(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.307/2023), decided on 09.09.2024 has observed in para13 as under:- “13. From the record, it is evident that no work ofthe complainant was pending with the petitioneron the date of making complaint or effecting trap against another accused, hence, prima facieoffence under Section 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2)of thePrevention of Corruption Act are not attracted.”

29.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), reported inCriminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009, SLP (Cri.) Nos. 6497of 2020 & Other connected matters, decided on15.12.2022, reported as (2023) 4 SCC 731 has observedin para 88 as under:- “88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion issummarised as under:

88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegalgratification by a public servant as a fact in issue bythe prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establishthe guilt of the accused public servant under Sections7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of theaccused, the prosecution has to first prove thedemand of illegal gratification and the subsequentacceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue canbe proved either by direct evidence which can be inthe nature of oral evidence or documentaryevidence.”

30. In view of the discussion made above, the Courtfeels that it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdictionvested in it under the provisions of section 482 CrPC.

31. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition filed by theaccused petitioner under section 482 CrPC is allowed. Theorder of the prosecution sanction dated 19.12.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, is quashed andset aside with all consequential proceedings including theorder of cognizance dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Court oflearned Special Judge, Sessions Judge, Prevention ofCorruption Act No.1, Jaipur, in Criminal Reg. CaseNo.01/2021, State vs. Naresh Chand Meena, by whichcognizance has been taken against the accused petitioner forthe offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention ofCorruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and section 120B IPC andso also the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.245/2020 was registered at Police Station CPS, Jaipur,District ACB, Jodhpur for offences u/S 7 of amendment Actof 2018 read-with Section 120-B IPC qua the petitioner, arequashed and set aside.

32. Consequences to follow.

33. In view of the order passed in the main petition,the stay application and pending application/s, if any, alsostand disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Sharma N.K./Dy. Registrar