CHETRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.PC, petitioner-accused has prayed to quash the order dtd. 25/4/2019 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Alwar, dismissing an application filed by Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter for short "ACB") under Sec. 169 Cr.PC, in connection with FIR No.248/2016 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur for offences under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short "the PC Act") & Sec. 120-B IPC, and has prayed to grant the application, allowing to discharge/release the petitioneraccused in the present criminal case, on the ground of refusal of prosecution sanction.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner-Mr. Manish Gupta, strenuously contended that as per Sec. 19 of the PC Act, previous sanction for prosecution of a public servant, for the charges of corruption, is mandatory. Petitioner is indisputably a public servant and the application filed by ACB for grant of prosecution sanction against the petitioner has been rejected by a competent Authority. Learned counsel pointed out that the Managing Director, Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited (hereinafter for short "the Alwar Dairy"), vide letter dtd. 19/11/2016 and again vide letter dtd. 8/12/2017, has forwarded a decision of the Board of Directors, declining to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner, therefore, his contention is that the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the charges of corruption and cannot be prosecuted in connection with the aforesaid FIR.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that an application under Sec. 169 Cr.PC was moved by the ACB before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, to release the petitioner, due to refusal to grant prosecution sanction by the dairy federation, Alwar, whereupon, the Special Judge had no option except to allow the application. Learned counsel submits that the Special Judge erred in dismissing the application under Sec. 169 Cr.PC and issuing directions suo moto, to place the application for reconsideration of the refusal to grant prosecution sanction, before the higher Authority/Reviewing Authority afresh, so also to initiate further investigation in the matter.