JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 10.09.2014 passed by the respondents, whereby, prosecution sanction against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act') and Section 197 Cr.P.C. has been granted.

(2.) The petitioner is an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer ('ACTO'), Commercial Taxes Department; a complaint was filed by Chhitarmal at Anti Corruption Bureau, Chowki Nagaur ('ACB') on 26.01.2011 complaining that he was involved in the business of electric goods and furniture at Borawad, Makrana; on 25.01.2011 the petitioner alongwith another ACTO Krishan Kanhaiya Borana came to his shop and conducted a survey and sought record of his shop and in the evening when complainant went to Commercial Taxes Office, he met the petitioner and K.K. Borana, when they threatened him with heavy fine and when he agreed to give illegal gratification, he was assured that case will be closed; after bargain the petitioner and K.K. Borana agreed to take Rs. 60,000/- as bribe; based on the said complaint, the ACB duly laid a trap on 28.01.2011 but the same failed; again on 10.02.2011 the trap failed; however, the ACB registered an FIR No. 104/2011 at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Chowki Nagaur) for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act and Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner; whereafter on conclusion of investigation, prosecution sanction against the petitioner and K.K. Borana was sought; the petitioner was provided opportunity of hearing and thereafter the prosecution sanction has been issued by the authority on 10.09.2014.

(3.) It is contended in the petition that the order dated 10.09.2014 is arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; the allegations against the petitioner are not at all established; the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case; the trap having failed and there being no evidence available on record, the sanction could not have been granted; based on the perusal of the note-sheet, the Dy. Secretary, Department of Personnel by a detailed note-sheet refused to grant prosecution sanction, however, on the same material, the Secretary, Department of Personnel has granted prosecution sanction, which is not sustainable; the location of complainant's business does not fall within the petitioner's jurisdiction and, therefore, the entire story made out is baseless; allegations have been made against the complainant and reference has been made regarding criminal matters pending against him as well.