Patwar Halka, Devliya, Additional Charge, Tehsil Sanganer, vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

Judgment

7. ----Petitioner/Accused Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. District Collector And District Magistrate, Jaipur. Government Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Group-1) Departement, Jaipur. Insepector General Of Police-I, Anti Corruption Bureau Rajasthan, Jaipur. Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents Umesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Shivcharan Jangid, R/o Garhi Po Gerota, Po Gerota, Tehsil Sikray And Jagdamba Computers, E- Mitra, B-58A, Behind Dharam Kanta, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh, R/o Village Kundanpura, Post Karangarh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur And Jagdamba Computers, E-Mitra, B-58A, Behind Dharam Kanta, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. ----Respondents/Complainants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain with Mr. Aman Galav, Mr. Yatharth Agarwal, Mr. Varchasva, Mr. Saurabh Jain and Mr. Parth For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 03/03/2025 Order

1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 528 BNSS with a challenge to order dated

20.04.2016 passed by the District Collector & District Magistrate, Jaipur, whereby the prosecution sanction was issued so as to [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (2 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] prosecute him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) in regard to the FIR No.326/2014 registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur and the matter is pending before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No.4, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.(14/2016) 19/2021 and also prayed to quash the orders dated 06.06.2016 &

20.02.2017 passed by the trial Court and so also the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the aforementioned F.I.R.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded money amounting to Rs.7,000/- from the complainant through a person named Mukesh in lieu of a favourable report with reference to Jagdamba Computer Center (e-Mitra) as regards the alleged irregularity committed by the said e-Mitra.

3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation of demand of bribe against the petitioner is without any basis. Counsel also submits that there is no acceptance of any money and during the trap proceedings, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is said

to have been recovered from Shri Shyam Computers and Photo Stat Center and when the owner of the said Computer and Photo Stat Center was asked about the said amount, the owner Mahesh Kumawat stated that the amount is not of his and that Mahendra Meena Patwari (petitioner) may have put the same there behind his back.

4. Counsel further submits that the District Collector & District Magistrate, Jaipur while considering the issue as regards the prosecution sanction on the basis of the material placed before it [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (3 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] by the Investigating Agency has not made due application of mind and has stated incorrect facts and on the basis of the same has given the prosecution sanction. The prosecution sanction order bears purely incorrect facts which are contrary to the record of the investigation. Counsel further submits that in the order of issuing prosecution sanction against the petitioner it has been mentioned that during the trap proceedings of 15.09.2014, the ACB team caught the petitioner red handed accepting Rs.3,000/- from the complainant, whereas no money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the trap proceedings as is clearly evident from the investigation report.

5. Counsel further submits that the allegation of demand of money is falsified from the fact that the allegation against the petitioner is that of demand of money in lieu of giving a report in favour of Jagdamba Computer Center (e-Mitra). However, the seizure memo dated 15.09.2014 clearly reveals that the inquiry report by the petitioner in regard to the irregularity committed by the Jagdamba Computer, was already submitted on 12.09.2014 i.e. even prior to the trap proceedings. Once the inquiry report was submitted, there was no occasion for the complainant to have given any money to the petitioner. Counsel also submits that since the prosecution sanction order itself is illegal, unjustified and not sustainable in eye of law, any further criminal proceedings on the basis of said the prosecution sanction order is also liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial of the case is at its fag-end and fourteen witnesses have already been examined [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (4 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] so far. He also submits that the order of prosecution sanction has been issued after due application of mind.

7. Counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the issue of illegality in issuance of prosecution sanction can be raised at any stage or even at the time of final arguments. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka; 2016(2) SCC (Cri) 360.

8. Considered the submissions made at bar and also gone through the investigation report including the seizure memo dated

15.09.2014 so also the prosecution sanction order dated

20.04.2016 issued by the District Collector & District Magistrate, Jaipur.

9. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Umesh Kumar Jangid submitted a written complaint to the ACB that he is running Jagdamba Computers (e-Mitra) at Tehsil, Sanganer and vide letter No.3719 dated 08.09.2014, he was issued a show cause notice for certain alleged irregularities and the inquiry as regards the said show cause notice was handed over to the petitioner- Mahendra Kumar Meena, Patwari, Tehsil Sanganer. It is alleged that on 11.09.2014, the petitioner visited the e-Mitra Center along with one Mukesh and enquired about the allegations from him and one Vikram Singh. It is further alleged that on

12.09.2014, one person named Mukesh made a call and said that the petitioner is demanding Rs.7,000/- in lieu of the report in his favour, however, he does not want to give any bribe to the petitioner and instead wants that the petitioner be caught red handed. On the said complaint, the trap proceedings were [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (5 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] conducted and during the trap proceedings Rs.3,000/- were said to have been recovered from the drawer of the table at Shyam Computers and Photostat. When the Proprietor of the said Photostat Center was asked about the money, he stated that the said amount does not belong to him and the petitioner might have placed it there behind his back.

10. After investigation the matter was sent for prosecution sanction as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

11. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Jaipur vide order dated 20.04.2016 accorded the prosecution sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988.

12. As per the investigation report, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from the drawer of the table at Shyam Computers and Photostat which is alleged to be the money given as a bribe to the petitioner. The District Collector while issuing the prosecution sanction vide its order dated 20.04.2016, has observed that on the date of trap proceedings i.e. 15.09.2014 the team of ACB caught the petitioner red handed, accepting Rs.3,000/- as bribe from the complainant and was thus arrested.

13. The aforesaid observation of the District Collector & District Magistrate, Jaipur is contrary to the investigation report. Such glaring incorrect facts mentioned by the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority, contrary to the investigation report clearly speak that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority has not made due application of his mind while granting the prosecution sanction. [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (6 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] The relevant part of the order of the Sanctioning Authority reads as under:- “esjs /;ku esa ;g Hkh yk;k x;k fd Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk] rRdkyhu iVokjh iVokj gYdk nsofy;k vfr0 izHkkj txriqjk] rglhy lkaxkusj] ftyk t;iqj ds fo#) iqfyl fujh{kd] Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks] t;iqj uxj f}rh;] t;iqj }kjk ifjoknh Jh mes'k dqekj tkafxM ,oa Jh fodze flag ds izkFkZuk i= ij dk;Zokgh djrs gq, fj'or dh ekax dk izpfyr rjhds ds vuqlkj lR;kiu fd;k x;k ,oa ckn lR;kiu fnukad 15-09- 2014 dks Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks dh Vhe }kjk Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh dks ifjoknh ls 3000@& :i;s v{kjs rhu gtkj :i;s dh fj'or jkf'k ysrs gq;s jaxs gkFkksa fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA”

14. The relevant part of the investigation report reads as under:- “ifjoknh Jh mes'k dqekj tkafxM ls Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh us fj'or izkIr dj] Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh ftl nqdku Jh ';ke dEI;qVj ,oa QksVks LVsV ds vUnj tkdj iVokjh th us nqdku esa fLFkr dkmUVj Vscy dh mij dh njkt esa vius tsc ls :i;s fudkydj j[ks Fks] ikl esa gh fLFkr mDr nqdku esa fujh{kd iqfyl] nksuksa xokgku] nksuksa ifjoknh rFkk Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh dks ysdj x;k rks ogka ,d yM+dk QksVks LVsV e'khu ds ikl [kM+k feyk ml yM+ds dks iqfyl fujh{kd us mldk uke irk iwNk rks mlus viuk uke egs'k dqekor iq= Jh dSyk'k ukjk;.k] fuoklh xkao dqUnuiqjk] iksLV igkMh;ka] rglhy Qkxh] ftyk t;iqj gky dk;Zjr Jh ';ke dEI;qVj ,oa QksVks LVsV] jkoy Iyktk] izFke ry] lkaxkusj t;iqj gksuk crk;kA Jh egs'kk dqekor ls Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh dks tkuus rFkk mldh nqdku esa vkus ckcr~ iwNus ij Jh egs'k dqekor us crk;k fd eSa Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh th dks tkurk gwa] ;s lhf<+;ksa ds lkeus cka;h rjQ dh nqdku esa cSBrs gSa rFkk Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk th vkt tc vki yksx ;gka vk;s Fks blls dqN le; iwoZ esjh nqdku esa vk;s Fks rc eSa QksVks LVsV dj jgk Fkk] rc mUgksaus eq>ls iwNk Fkk fd egs'k D;k dj jgk gS rks eSaus dgk QksVks LVsV dj jgk gwaA bl ij iVokjh th esjs dkmUVj ds ikl dqN nsj [kM+s jgdj okil pys x;s Fks] eSa ml le; QksVks LVsV ds dke esa fcth Fkk] blfy, esjk eqag nhokj dh rjQ Fkk rFkk esjh [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (7 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] ihB esjh nqdku ds dkmUVj dh rjQ Fkh] dqN le; [kM+s jgus ds ckn Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh th esjh nqdku ls okil viuh nqdku dh rjQ pys x;sA vki yksx tc vk;s rc Hkh eSa QksVks LVsV gh dj jgk FkkA blds i'pkr xokg Jh f'ko'kadj ls nqdku Jh ';ke dEI;qVj ,oa QksVks LVsV ds vUnj j[ks cM+h lkbt ds dkmUVj dh ryk'kh fyokbZ xbZ rks dkmUVj ds mij ls izFke njkt esa ,d Mk;jh ftl ij y{ehth dh rLohj yxh gqbZ Fkh ds ikl gtkj&gtkj ds dqN uksV j[ks gq, fn[kkbZ fn;s] mDr uksVksa ds xokg Jh f'ko'kadj us fxu dj crk;k fd ;s gtkj&gtkj :i;s ds rhu uksV dqy 3000@& :i;s gSaA ftudk dk;kZy; esa cuh QnZ is'kd'kh ,oa lqiqnZxh uksV esa vafdr uksVksa ds uEcjksa ls mDr cjken 'kqnk gtkj&gtkj ds rhu uksVksa ds uEcjksa dk feyku nksuksa xokgku ls djok;k x;k rks nksuksa xokg us uksVksa ds uEcjksa dk o QnZ esa vafdr uEcjksa ds gqcgq gksuk crk;kA mDr cjken 'kqnk fj'orh jkf'k ds ckjs esa Jh egs'k dqekor ls iwNk x;k rks mlus crk;k fd ;s :i;s esjs ugha gSa gks ldrk gS tc eS QksVks LVsV dj jgk Fkk ml oDr iVokjh th us esjh ihB ds ihNs esjh njkt esa :i;s j[k fn;s gksA esjh nqdku esa Jh egsUnz dqekj eh.kk iVokjh ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ O;fDr ugha vk;k FkkA mDr dkmUVj ds njkt esa ftl LFkku ij fj'orh jkf'k cjken gqbZ gS ml LFkku dks ,d lkQ :bZ ds VqdM+s ls lkQ fd;k x;kA”

15. As regards the requirement of application of mind of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority at the time of issuance of prosecution sanction, following the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and Coordinate Bench of this Court, are being considered upon:- A. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & one other connected matter, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 13, 14, 15 and 16 has observed as under:- “13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (8 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.

15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (9 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter 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: AIR 1948 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. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani [(1996) 4 SCC 472: 1996 SCC (Cri) 755], State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti [(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 of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain [(2013) 8 SCC 119: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 515: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 85].)

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

16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.

16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.

16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (10 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.

16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.” B. State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 9 and 10 has observed as under:- “9. We agree that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not.

10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (11 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police, Karnataka Lokayukta had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as (sic to) the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.” C. Harish Chandra Bunkar Balai Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors., (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.707/2023), decided on 18.10.2024, wherein the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, has observed in 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 along with additional affidavit) and the order dated 28th January 2015 makes it clear that the order granting prosecution sanction is a verbatim repetition of the draft prosecution as furnished by the ACB to the Collector, Banswara.

11. The order dated 28th January 2015 does not reflect any ground on the basis of which it can be concluded that the sanctioning authority applied his independent mind before granting the prosecution sanction. In Babu Lal Vishnoi's case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon Subhash Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.590 of 2010, wherein it was observed as under: [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (12 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] "The authority competent to remove a public servant from service is clothed with the power to grant sanction for prosecution to such public servant by the Legislature with [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] a definite intention as that authority being having administrative and disciplinary control on the person concerned is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation on basis of intimate knowledge of the work and conduct and also having day to day knowledge of overall administrative interest of the department. The sanction for prosecution represent a deliberate decision and that requires objective satisfaction of the competent authority about a prima facie case against the person facing accusation. The authority competent while granting sanction is also required to record reasons for launching prosecution and is further required to specify its need in public interest. This important duty can be discharged only on independent application of mind to all the relevant facts on basis of which prosecution is proposed. If any extraneous pressure is mounted on the authority competent then there shall be all chances of frivolous and malicious prosecution. To maintain the spirit of the provisions for the grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant, the authority competent is required to act independently, objectively and with an intention for not saving a culprit from prosecution but at the same time with a view to afford a reasonable protection to a public servant from unnecessary harassment and undue hardship through vexatious prosecution. Keeping in mind, the above mentioned intention of the Legislature, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (supra) authoritatively held that the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (13 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. For the same reason, this Court too in the case of Kishan Lal (supra) held that the statutory power given to the authority competent is required to be exercised by the authority concerned and not by any body else."

12. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012, it was held as under : "As already stated, in the instant matter too the sanction granted and the draft to grant sanction 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. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absolute authority to grant sanction for prosecution to the competent authority, as such, the competent authority is required to apply its own mind by considering all relevant facts. The competent authority may avail assistance of other persons, but in no case, any other authority can initiate the process of consideration for grant of sanction and instruct the competent authority for granting sanction. In the case in hand, the consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of fact, was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution. The Anti Corruption Bureau could have communicated all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document. The prosecution sanction granted in the instant matter by the Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur under the letter dated 18.10.2012 on face depicts non- application of mind and abdication of the powers by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore, is illegal." [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (14 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025]

13. Applying the ratio of the above judgments to the present case, we hold that the proposed draft document for grant of prosecution sanction furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the sanctioning authority cannot be upheld in terms of Manish 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 of this Court has observed as under:- “It is an admitted position that for procuring the drug license and cancellation of drug license, online procedure was prevailing at that time because department had started online process from September, 2017. Complainant very well knew the online process. He had applied for cancellation of drug license online. So, there was no need to prepare the file offline. Investigating Authorities had not conducted the verification of illegal demand in accordance with law and had not conducted any enquiry as to whether any work was pending with the petitioner or not. It is also an admitted position that at the time of trap proceedings, no work was pending with the petitioner from 17.12.2018 to 19.12.2018. Complainant first time applied for the drug license on

24.12.2018. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the concerned authorities. Concerned authorities also admitted the fact that no work was pending with the petitioner. Petitioner had clearly stated that complainant had forcefully put the tainted money in his pocket on account of rivalry of the petitioner with Ranjeet Gurjar. Department had also admitted the rivalry of the petitioner with [2024:RJ- JP:41711] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-5351/2023] Ranjeet [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (15 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] Gurjar. Ranjeet Gurjar is the friend of the complainant Kuldeep Singh. In the present case, prosecution failed to establish that there was any demand and acceptance of the bribe. Mere recovery of tainted money does not attract the offence against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act of 1988 because prosecution had to establish the fact that work was pending with the petitioner and petitioner had demanded the tainted money for doing work. Competent authority before granting the prosecution sanction had not applied independent mind. So, I deem it fit to quash and set aside the order of the prosecution sanction dated

23.06.2021 issued against the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (A-3), Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.”

16. It is an obligatory duty of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority that on receiving the material from the Investigating Officer for issuance of prosecution sanction, he has to consider it and undertake extensive scrutiny and thereafter pass an order ascertaining whether the prosecution sanction is to be issued or not.

17. The basic object behind seeking prosecution sanction prior to taking cognizance against a public servant/government servant is that as regards the functioning of the department or office, no other department shall unnecessarily interfere in the day to day functioning of the department concerned and also to ensure that the public servant is not unnecessarily harassed by any other department or agency since it is only the concerned department where the public servant is employed, of whose basic procedures of functioning the Sanctioning Authority is aware of. So as to ensure that there may not be unwarranted interference of any [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (16 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] other department in the internal functioning of a department, the provision as regards the prosecution sanction has been inserted and therefore it was for the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority to consider the material placed before it by the Investigating Officer and to examine that and pass appropriate order after making due application of its mind. It is only the administrative department under which a person is employed, which can take due care of shelter provided to an employee to discharge his/her official duties.

18. In the present case, after going through the investigation report, this Court finds that the observations of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority that during the trap proceedings the petitioner was caught red handed accepting Rs.3,000/- as bribe from the complainant, is an incorrect observation and the same is contrary to the record.

19. The allegation against the petitioner for demand of bribe is said to have been made in lieu of submitting a favorable report as regards the inquiry against the Jagdamba Computers (e-Mitra). In furtherance of this show cause notice dated 08.09.2014, the inquiry was handed over to the petitioner Mahendra Kumar Meena, Patwari.

20. As per the seizure memo dated 15.09.2014, which is a part of the charge-sheet/ investigation report, the inquiry report in respect of the complainant Jagdamba Computers (e-Mitra) was already submitted by the petitioner on 12.09.2014. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand any bribe from the complainant and also there was no occasion for the complainant to give any bribe to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (17 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025]

21. Learned Public Prosecutor has also raised an issue that the prosecution sanction was accorded in the year 2016 which has now been challenged by way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. after eight years. Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. provides for inherent powers to this Court and the said Section reads as under: “528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.-Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nanjappa (supra) in para Nos.14 & 15 has observed as under: “14. In B. Saha & Ors. vs. M.S. Kochar, (1979) 4 SCC 177, this Court was dealing with the need for a sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and the stage at which the question regarding its validity could be raised. This Court held that the question of validity of an order of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. could be raised and considered at any stage of proceedings. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in K. Kalimuthu vs. State by DSP (2005) 4 SCC 512 where Pasayat, J., speaking for the Court, held that the question touching the need for a valid sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. need not be raised as soon as the complaint is lodged but can be agitated at any stage of the proceedings. The following observation in this connection is apposite: “The question relating to the need of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is not necessarily be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein. This question may arise at any stage of the proceeding. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (18 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] determined from stage to stage. Further, in cases where offences under the Act are concerned the effect of Section 19, dealing with question of prejudice has also to be noted.”

15. The legal position regarding the importance of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption is thus much too clear to admit equivocation. The statute forbids taking of cognizance by the Court against a public servant except with the previous sanction of an authority competent to grant such sanction in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19(1). The question regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court trying the accused so much depends upon the existence of a valid sanction. In case the sanction is found to be invalid the court can discharge the accused relegating the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for prosecution in accordance with law. If the trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution.”

23. The Hon’ble Apex court has observed that if the trial Court proceeds despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution.

24. In para 21 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nanjappa (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “21. The next question then is whether we should, while allowing this appeal, set aside the order passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (19 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] High Court and permit the launch of a fresh prosecution against the appellant, at this distant point of time. The incident in question occurred on 24th March, 1998. The appellant was, at that point of time, around 38 years old. The appellant is today a senior citizen. Putting the clock back at this stage when the prosecution witnesses themselves may not be available, will in our opinion, serve no purpose. That apart, the trial Court had, even upon appreciation of the evidence, although it was not required to do so, given its finding on the validity of the sanction, and had held that the prosecution case was doubtful, rejecting the prosecution story. It will, therefore, serve no purpose to resume the proceedings over and again. We do not, at any rate, see any compelling reason for directing a fresh trial at this distant point of time in a case of this nature involving a bribe of Rs.500/-, for which the appellant has already suffered the ignominy of a trial, conviction and a jail term no matter for a short while. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.”

25. The basic ingredients to convict a person for the alleged offence under the PC Act are that there must be incriminating evidence to prove that there is (i) demand of bribe by the public servant, (ii) the public servant accepted the reward paid in response to alleged demand and, (iii) there is some work pending before the said public servant, for fulfilling/performing the same, he could make such undue demand.

26. In the present case, there is no such evidence on record to satisfy the aforesaid ingredients.

27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani Vs. State of Gujrat & Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.----of 2025 (@S.L.P (Crl.) No.-------of 2025 @ Diary [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (20 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] No.46289 of 2024), decided on 27.02.2025 in para Nos.12 & 22 has observed as under:- “12. It has been categorically held by the Constitution Bench that the proof of demand (or an offer) and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a fact in issue in the criminal proceeding and is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Unless proof is offered to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presumption would not arise. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot arise on the mere allegation of a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as rightly pointed out by the appellant. The question of presumption does not arise in the present case where the Special Court had merely examined the complainant and also summoned three witnesses, the officers of the investigation team, under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of recording their statements. This is pre-charge evidence based on which summons have been issued to the accused Nos.2 to 7. However, even a prima-facie finding has to be on the basis of allegations containing the definite ingredients for which proof could be offered at the trial, giving rise to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which presumption is also rebuttable. 22. The only charge is with respect to misuse of authority which does not come under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and none of the ingredients regarding demand or obtaining or acceptance of bribe or any illegal gratification has come out. The accusation was only that the policy of the State required a tender process to be adopted but the Minister had sanctioned the grant of fishing rights on an upset price, which is alleged to be misuse of authority especially since the Policy can be deviated from, only on orders of the Chief Minister or the Cabinet as per the policy document and the Rules of Business framed. The investigation report, as we observed, speaks only of an allegation of misuse of authority, without any allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe as against the appellant. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that, if there is a demand and acceptance of bribe, then there is a presumption that it is to dishonestly carry out some activity by a public servant, for which, first, proof will have to be offered of the demand and acceptance. It is not [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (21 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] otherwise that, if there is a misuse of authority then there is always a presumption of a demand and acceptance of bribe, resulting in a valid allegation of corruption.”

28. From the facts of the case, it is very much clear that neither there is concrete evidence as regards the demand of gratification by the accused-petitioner nor there is evidence of acceptance of such gratification.

29. It is also pertinent to mention here that the alleged demand and acceptance of money is said to be in regard to submitting a favourable report on a notice to the complainant for irregularities at E-mitra. It has also come out on record as is evident from one seizure memo that the accused-petitioner has also submitted an enquiry report as regards the irregularities committed by the complainant prior to alleged demand and acceptance and in such circumstances, no presumption can be drawn against the petitioner for demand and acceptance of amount on the basis of material available on record.

30. On scrutiny of evidence and other material on record, the Court finds that the order dated 20.02.2017 of framing charges against the accused-petitioner is also contrary to material on record. The charges have been framed relying upon the memo of transcript of demand, acceptance and there verification. The alleged transcript does not have substantial material to prove the allegations.

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court can safely held that the impugned Prosecution Sanction order dated 20.04.2016 has been issued without due application of mind and same is invalid, not sustainable in the eyes of law and is declared to be non-est in the eyes of law. Any criminal proceedings based on [2025:RJ-JP:9150] (22 of 22) [CRLMP-1220/2025] such prosecution sanction order and without incriminating evidence, is also hereby declared to be invalid.

32. On scrutiny of the material collected during investigation, this Court finds no sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences.

33. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The prosecution sanction order dated 20.04.2016 (Annexure.4), order dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure-6) and further the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner arising out of an FIR No.326/2014 registered at Police Station ACB, Jaipur, District Jaipur, which is pending as Criminal Case No.(14/2016) 19/2021 before the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases No.4, Jaipur, are also hereby quashed and set aside.

34. Consequences to follow.

35. Since the main petition has been allowed, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Ashish Kumar/Satyendra/21 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J