Case title: Chetram S/o Arjun Lal, R/o Anta pada Tehsil Laxmangarh Distt. Alwar (Raj. VS State of Rajasthan,
Case no.: Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4934/2020
Dated on: February 28th 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble. MR Justice SUDESH BANSAL
FACTS OF THE CASE
The criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner-accused has prayed to quash the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar, dismissing an application filed by Anti-Corruption Bureau (hereinafter for short “ACB”) under Section 169 Cr.P.C, in connection with FIR No.248/2016 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short “the PC Act”) & Section 120-B IPC, and has prayed to grant the application, allowing to discharge/release the petitioner accused in the present criminal case, on the ground of refusal of prosecution sanction. One Tej Singh S/o Rajaram Yadav made a written report before the ACB, Alwar on 23.08.2016 that he was the Secretary of milk collection center in Harijan Basti, but same has been closed by the concerned officers of the Alwar Dairy, therefore, he is desirous to open a new milk collection centre in Village Luhadera. On making inquiry in this regard, he came to know that permission to open a new milk centre is granted by Sh. Bannaram Meena, Chairman of the Alwar Dairy, and he accepts application only of those persons, who pay Rs.50,000/- additionally. He stated in the report that Sh. Bannaram Meena himself does not take this amount directly, but his Personal Assistant & LDC, Sh. Chetram (petitioner herein) receives such amount from the party. He alleged that Chetram asked him to pay the amount of gratification of Rs.50,000/-, for granting permission to open a new milk collection centre, but since he does not want to pay the bribe to Sh. Bannaram Meena, Chairman and Sh. Chetram (LDC-cum-PA), hence a legal action be taken against them. It appears from record that after thorough investigation and on the basis of red-handed trap, the ACB found the aforesaid offences proved against Sh. Chetram and Sh. Dhanni Ram Yadav. The role of Sh. Bannaram Meena, Chairman of Alwar Dairy, was noticed to be suspicious, however, investigation against him was postponed, but later on, charge sheet was filed by the ACB only against Dhanni Ram Yadav.
ISSUES
- whether the impugned order warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. PC?
- whether the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar acted well within its jurisdiction, to issue directions to the ACB as indicated above, while dismissing the application filed by the ACB under Section 169 Cr. PC?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC): This section grants inherent powers to the High Court to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC): This section allows the investigating officer to release the accused when there is insufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a magistrate.
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act): This section mandates prior sanction for the prosecution of a public servant for corruption charges. Without this sanction, no court can take cognizance of the offenses committed by a public servant under the PC Act.
Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Section 7: Punishment for public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
Section 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct by a public servant for obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person.
Section 13(2): Provides the penalty for committing the offense defined in Section 13(1)(d).
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with criminal conspiracy. It punishes individuals who conspire to commit an offense or cause the commission of an illegal act
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Learned counsel for petitioner-Mr. Manish Gupta, strenuously contended that as per Section 19 of the PC Act, previous sanction for prosecution of a public servant, for the charges of corruption, is mandatory. Petitioner is indisputably a public servant and the application filed by ACB for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner has been rejected by a competent Authority. Learned counsel pointed out that the Managing Director, Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited (hereinafter for short “the Alwar Dairy”), vide letter dated 19.11.2016 and again vide letter dated 08.12.2017, has forwarded a decision of the Board of Directors, declining to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner, therefore, his contention is that the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the charges of corruption and cannot be prosecuted in connection with the aforesaid FIR. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that an application under Section 169 Cr. PC was moved by the ACB before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, to release the petitioner, due to refusal to grant prosecution sanction by the dairy federation, Alwar, whereupon, the Special Judge had no option except to allow the application. Learned counsel submits that the Special Judge erred in dismissing the application under Section 169 Cr.PC and issuing directions Suo moto, to place the application for reconsideration of the refusal to grant prosecution sanction, before the higher Authority/Reviewing Authority afresh, so also to initiate further investigation in the matter. Learned counsel for petitioner vociferously contended that such exercise of jurisdiction by the Special Judge, is wholly uncalled for as much as without jurisdiction, hence the impugned. order is absolutely against the settled mandate of law, as such needs to be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC and simultaneously, the application filed by the ACB under Section 169 Cr.PC.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State so also for ACB, prayed to pass just and proper order as this Court deems necessary to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. However, learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the impugned order was passed, dismissing the application filed by the ACB under Section 169 CrPC, but the ACB has not come forward to challenge the impugned order before the High Court, in order to pursue its application. When the issue came up before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar, seeking to discharge/release the petitioner-Chetram because of refusal of the prosecution sanction, learned Special Judge observed that in fact, in the complaint made on 23.08.2016, two persons were named namely Sh. Bannaram Meena, the then Chairman of Alwar Dairy, and (ii) Chetram, LDC-cum-PA of the Chairman, who demanded the money from complainant Tej Singh. The allegations were found true by the ACB, on prima facie verification, and thereafter, trap proceedings were initiated on 31.08.2016. In the red-handed trap, amount of gratification, which was fixed @ Rs.45,000/-, was recovered on the spot from the office of Chairman, Sh. Bannaram Meena. As far as Sh. Bannaram Meena is concerned, though his role was too found suspicious, but investigation against him was postponed at that point of time, but in the investigation, the charges were found proved by the ACB against Sh. Chetram & one Sh. Dhanni Ram Yadav.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
This Court has concurrence with the view of learned Special Judge, that in such facts and circumstances, the refusal of prosecution sanction by the Management of Alwar Dairy, against the petitioner, obviously requires re-consideration by the Reviewing Authority. The ACB has not come forward to challenge the order impugned, therefore, a natural corollary is that the ACB is agreeable to abide by directions of the Special Judge. In the light of afore-referred discussions, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 falls well within jurisdiction of the Special Judge and stands within bounds of law. In case, the order impugned is quashed, rather the same would lead to failure of justice. There are serious allegations of corruption against petitioner Chetram, which have been found prima facie proved by the ACB during course of investigation. However, because petitioner is a public servant and procurement of prosecution sanction is essential, which has arbitrarily and malevolently been refused, therefore, for ends of justice, matter has been directed to be placed before the reviewing Authority for re-consideration, on the application of ACB. The ratio of the judgment is that once the cognizance is taken, the Magistrate cannot direct for further investigation. At the cost of repetition and in the light of afore-referred judgments of the Apex Court, the legal position remains no more res integra about powers and jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue directions for further investigation. In respect of issuing another direction by the Special Judge to place the matter of refusal of prosecution sanction against petitioner-Chetram, before the higher Authorities of Dairy Federation, or higher officials of the State Government, at the outset, it is noteworthy that in this regard, the Special Judge with the assistance & concurrence of the Public Prosecutor appearing for ACB, opined that, when prosecution sanction is refused by the Authority, the jurisdiction lies with the Reviewing Authority to reconsider the issue and the Reviewing Authority may grant prosecution sanction, if deems it necessary & justified after considering the new & additional facts, coupled with the entire conspectus of events. In the light of afore-referred discussions, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 falls well within jurisdiction of the Special Judge and stands within bounds of law. In case, the order impugned is quashed, rather the same would lead to failure of justice. There are serious allegations of corruption against petitioner Chetram, which have been found prima facie proved by the ACB during course of investigation. Such proposition of law deals with the entirely different set of facts, which are not involved in the present case. Looking to overall circumstances and for ends of justice, this Court affirms the order impugned dated 25.04.2019. The concerned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar, deserves appreciation and commendation, for applying such an erudite judicious approach in this matter and this Court does that. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
