Kailash Chand Chhipa Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
prevention of corruption act, 1988 - section 19--sanction for prosecution--is a administrative matter--plea of accused that sanction was issued by sanctioning authority under pressure--however facts and circumstances showing that sanctioning authority issued order of sanction by considering all the relevant material--no error or illegality in the order of trial court rejecting the application of petitioner under section 19 of the act.;revision dismissed - parihar, j.1. a charge sheet for the offence under sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (for short 'the act') and section 120-b ipc was filed against the petitioner before the court of the special judge, prevention of corruption act, jaipur. it has been alleged that while working as junior accountant, panchayat samiti, doodu, the petitioner demanded a sum of rs. 300/- from one gopal lal soni for payment of sanctioned amount to the said gopal lal soni in indira avaas yojna. after being trapped, a sum of rs. 300/- was recovered from the pocket of the petitioner.2. after filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted an application under section 19 of the act before the trial court on 18.5.1999, alleging therein that since the sanction for prosecution was granted by the competent authority under pressure the proceedings against the petitioner may be dropped. the application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 17.12.1999, observing that, prima facie, the sanction granted by the competent authority seems to be justified.3. thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner vide order dt. 3.3.2001, statement of mr. a.k. gupta, director, treasury & accounts, rajasthan, jaipur, the competent authority, who issued the sanction for prosecution were recorded. after recording of the statement of mr. gupta, the petitioner filed a fresh application under section 19 of the act on 18.9.2001. the second application was also rejected by the trial court vide order dated 3.10.2001, which is under challenge in the present revision petition.4. the only contention as raised by mr. lokesh sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been that once the competent authority having refused the grant of sanction for prosecution, the same authority could not have reviewed its earlier order and, subsequently, issue a fresh order granting sanction for prosecution. while assailing the impugned order dated 3.10.2001, mr. sharma has relied upon the judgments of the supreme court in the case of 'ramanand chand chaudhary v. state of bihar' (1), and judgment of this court in the case of 'state of rajasthan v. kesardev and ors.' (2). mr. sharma also relied upon the judgment of the allahabad high court in the case of 'vijay bahadur v. state of u.p.' (3).5. after having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, i have carefully gone through the entire material on record, the original record as summoned from the trial court as also the judgments cited at the bar.6. the petitioner has heavily relied on the letter dated 20.5.1997 written by the director, treasury & accounts, rajasthan, jaipur to the special secretary, finance department, rajasthan, jaipur. from the bare perusal of the above letter as available on record it seems that the same was only a recommendation to the state government for not granting sanction for prosecution, however, subsequently, the competent authority, vide forwarding letter dated 17.9.1997, had issued proper sanction for prosecution with reasons duly recorded. the same was sent to the superintendent of police, rajasthan state investigation bureau, jaipur.7. mr. a.k. gupta, the competent authority, who issued the sanction for prosecution, in his statement recorded before the trial court, has categorically stated that the letter for sanction was issued by him after thorough consideration of the entire material. it has further been stated by him that he was not under any pressure from any corner when the letter of sanction for prosecution was issued by him. it has further been clarified by mr. gupta in his statement that, initially, some clarification was sought from the finance department in regard to issuing of such sanction for prosecution and only after the general clarification, as issued by the finance department, the whole matter was considered and the order of sanction for prosecution was issued by him. the order of sanction is also available on record, which contains the detail note prepared by the sanctioning authority.8. the issuing of sanction for prosecution is only an administrative matter. in the present matter, initially, no refusal for sanction for prosecution has been issued and only some clarifications were sought and, thereafter, considering the entire material, the order of sanction for prosecution was issued by the competent authority. in such matters, it all depends on the facts of each case.9. after having gone through the detailed order passed by the competent authority issuing sanction for prosecution as also the statement of mr. a.k. gupta, the sanctioning authority, i find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application under sec. 19 of the act.10. the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.11. accordingly, i find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. the record of the trial court be sent back immediately. the trial court is further directed to expedite the trial. the petitioner is also directed to appear before the trial court on 22.4.2002 for further proceedings. a copy of this order may also be sent to the court concerned immediately.