Criminal Case No. 03 of 2015 · High Court · 2025 on 18 Mar 2025 — Criminal Case No. 03 of 2015

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Niranjan Kumar, the applicant in person, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi and Shri Kushagra Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. By means of the instant Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated

11.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), C.B.I. (West), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.03 of 2015, whereby an application (Paper No.B-137) filed by the applicant challenging the validity of the prosecution sanction order, was rejected by the

trial Court. The applicant has challenged the validity of the sanction order also by way of this application.

3. While the applicant was working as an Income Tax Officer, he was caught red handed while accepting Rs.2,00,000/- bribe for performing his public duties. On 30.03.2015, an FIR No.RC0062015A0007 was lodged in Police Station- C.B.I., ACB, Lucknow in this regard. On 14.05.2015, the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Lucknow (In-charge) passed an order granting sanction for prosecution of the applicant. On

07.02.2023, the applicant filed an application (Paper No.B-137) wherein it was prayed that :- "(a) The file containing the proceedings of the consideration of the question of sanction along with the documents and order sheet be summoned from the office of the Sanctioning Authority to enable cross examination of the Sanctioning Authority as well as proper consideration of the question of the validity the sanction by this Hon'ble court. (b) Summoned and recall the Sanctioning Authority Shri R.P.Srivastava for his examination by this Hon'ble court with regard to contents of the sanction file and other aspects related to grant of sanction. (c) The C.B.I. be direçted to placed on record the letter asking for sanction written to Sanctioning Authority along with all enclosures as it will be required for the purpose of cross examination of the Sanctioning Authority. (d) Allow the accused to place written arguments on sanction apart from advancing oral arguments."

4. C.B.I. had filed objections against the application inter alia stating that the Sanctioning Authority has already been examined by the trial Court.

5. The trial Court rejected the application B-137 by the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 holding that previously, the applicant had filed an application dated 24.11.2018 for recalling PW-1- Sanctioning Authority Shri R.P. Srivastava, which application was rejected by means of an order dated 15.12.2018. The applicant had again raised questions against validity of the sanction order. At the time of passing of the sanction order, Shri R.P. Srivastava was having the charge of the post of Principle Commissioner, Income Tax-II, Lucknow. The sanction order dated 14.05.2015 is available on record and it has been marked as Exhibit A-1. The sanction order mentions that it was passed by the Authority after perusal of the entire relevant record. The applicant has cross-examined PW-1 Shri R.P. Srivastava. Thereafter, four prosecution witnesses have been examined and during cross-examination of PW-4, the applicant has given this application. The applicant is repetitively filing applications to create hurdles in progress of the trial. The material on record indicates that the prosecution sanction was granted after perusal of the entire record and the applicant has already cross-examined the Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, the application B-137 has been filed with the sole object of keeping the proceedings pending. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the application B-137.

6. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the applicant has submitted that as per the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Income Tax Officer, Group-B posts Recruitment Rules 2004, the appointing authority of Income Tax Officers is Principle Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, who is the Cadre Controlling Authority. Therefore, as per the applicant, the prosecution sanction can only be granted by the Principle Chief Commissioner, Income Tax and the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-II has no authority to grant prosecution sanction.

7. Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department has drawn attention of this Court to the pleadings made in paragraph-7 of the short counter affidavit filed by the Income Tax Department, wherein it has specifically been pleaded that the prosecution sanction order dated 14.05.2015 was passed by the then Principle Commissioner of Income Tax with due consideration and within the scope of his authority. Under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, the Commissioner /PCIT is the appointing authority for the post of Income Tax Officer (Group-B) and, therefore, he is the competent authority for granting sanction for prosecution of an Income Tax Officer.

8. The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the short counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that there is no provision of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 under which the Commissioner of Income Tax is the competent Sanctioning Authority. The applicant has further stated that Income Tax Officer Recruitment Rules 2004 has superseded the Rules made earlier and under the Rules of 2004, the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has to nominate the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion of Group-B Officers. The Departmental Promotion Committee has to make recommendations to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, who in turn approves and gets the order of promotion issued. Hence, the Principle Chief Commissioner, Income Tax is the appointing authority of the applicant.

9. A copy of the Rules referred to in the counter affidavit has been provided by the applicant. The Rules are called the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Income Tax Officer, Group-B Posts Recruitment Rules, 2004. These Rules provide for the method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications and other matters relating thereto as specified in Columns 5-14 of the Schedule annexed to the Rules. These Rules nowhere provide as to who will be the appointing authority in respect of the post of Income Tax Officer. These Rules also do not make any reference to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and these Rules nowhere provide that any of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 will stand superseded or overridden by the Rules of 2004. Therefore, I am unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the applicant.

10. Part-III of CCS (CCA) Rules deals with appointing authority. Rule 9 falling in Part-III provides that all appointments to the Central Civil Services Class-II, Class-II and Class-IV shall be made by the authorities specified in this behalf in the Schedule. Part-B of the Schedule appended to the aforesaid Rules deals with Central Civil Services Group-B. Item No.17 in Part-II mentions Income Tax Service Group-B and the appointing authority in respect of the said post is mentioned as Commissioner of Income Tax.

11. The applicant belongs to Income Tax Service Group-B and, therefore, as per the aforesaid provision contained in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Commissioner of Income Tax is the appointing authority for Income Tax Officers. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the sanction order, which has been passed by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, does not stand vitiated on the ground that it has not been passed by the appointing authority.

12. So far as the submission of the applicant that the sanction order has been passed by the authority without perusal of the relevant record, suffice it to say that it is mentioned in the sanction order that the Sanctioning Authority has carefully examined the material placed before him by the C.B.I., ACB, including the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other relevant material in regard to the allegations levelled against the applicant and after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and on being prima facie satisfied considered that the applicant should be prosecuted for the alleged offences.

13. The learned trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 rejecting the application B-137 filed by the applicant raising questions against the validity of prosecution sanction order.

14. The authority who had granted sanction had been examined before the trial Court as PW-1 in the year 2018 and the applicant had cross-examined him.

15. In these circumstances, the application filed by the applicant on

07.02.2023 challenging the validity of sanction order on grounds which have no force of law, appears to be an attempt to create hurdles in the expeditious disposal of trial.

16. The inherent powers of this Court recognized under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be exercised to pass such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The prosecution sanction order having been passed by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax after perusal of the entire record, the Sanctioning Authority having been examined as PW-1 and the applicant having extensively cross-examined the authority about five years ago, no failure of justice has been caused to the applicant by rejection of his application challenging validity of the prosecution sanction order dated 14.05.2015. It is the application filed challenging the validity of the sanction order at a belated stage, which create obstacles in dispensation of justice and the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench