(1) S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 628/2004 DR. YASHWANT KUMAR v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. (2) S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1261/2005
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Both the petitions stand disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 7, 13(1)(D), 13(2)
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for Petitioner. Mr. S.N.Tiwari, PP, for the State. Petitioner and State of Rajasthan both have presented petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C., in relation to order dated 23.07.2004 of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Udaipur. Both the petitioners seek quashing of order dated 23.7.2007, so both these applications are being decided together. Necessary brief facts, relevant for disposal of these applications, as described by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner are that allegedly, on asking of certain amount by the petitioner, and on initiation of concerned complainant, a trap was led and after investigation, report under Section 173 negative FR submitted. Learned Judge, considering FR (for this FIR No.16/04) vide detailed order dated 23.7.04, directed that prima facie case punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the petitioner, and directed prosecution for further proceeding to obtain sanction etc.
Petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor both argued that such directions for obtaining sanction are not as per law – the order is some like mandatory one for the sanctioning authority which ought not to have been passed – this is completely discretion of the concerned authority to grant or not to grant sanction. Argued that such mandatory type of directions being contrary to legal provisions are liable to quashed. In 2 support of contentions, reliance placed on (i) 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 689, Manshihlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat. Considered. It appears that complainant too presented an application 30.4.04 before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur to the effect that he does not have any objection or grievances for the report. Considered. Prosecution sanction as per Section 19 is to be given by the concerned competent authority – sanction accorded by the appropriate authority should be such as may not be under extraneous considerations.
Hon'ble Supreme Court also has accordingly held. Relevant portion of the order is as under :- “च(cid:2) (cid:3)क(cid:5) पथम दष(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14) म(cid:14)मल(cid:14) बनन(cid:14) प(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:14) ज(cid:14)त(cid:14) ह(cid:22) इसलल(cid:13)(cid:26) अल(cid:28)(cid:13)(cid:29)जन पक इस म(cid:14)मल(cid:26) म(cid:31) व!ल" (cid:5)(cid:26) तहत प(cid:29)लसक(cid:13)(cid:2)शन स(cid:26)कशन आक& ए!(cid:3) अन(cid:13) व!ल" (cid:5)(cid:26) तहत (cid:5)) ज(cid:14)न(cid:26) !(cid:14)ल* (cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:13)+!(cid:14)ह, ए!(cid:3) पक-(cid:13)(cid:14) अपन(cid:14) (cid:5)र अल/म (cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:13)+!(cid:14)ह, (cid:5)र(cid:31)।" Directions, as above, are for obtaining prosecution sanction as per law. Above order can hardly be deemed to be a mandatory order for granting sanction, still it will be appropriate to clearly mention that concerned authorities are to be guided by their own wisdom on facts and legal provisions - without in any way, being affected by above order of
Operative part
23.7.04. Observing, as above, this mandatory order (if any) of obtaining sanction by the prosecution is made ineffective and is hereby quashed. The prosecution or the complainant shall be at liberty to do needful. Both the petitions stand disposed of. (C. M. TOTLA), J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Both the petitions stand disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 7, 13(1)(D), 13(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 18 Sep 2008. The bench was C M TOTLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.