LT CO (RETD ) SHER SINGH S/O ADD RAM JI CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN; DIRECTOR, SAINIK KALYAN VIGHAG; ZILA SAINIK KALYAN ADHIKARI; SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 25.2.10 issued by the Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, granting sanction in exercise of the power conferred under Section 197 Cr.P.C., for the prosecution of the petitioner for offences u/s 409 & 120-B IPC in respect of FIR No.12/09 dated 13.1.09 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Barmer.

(2.) The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, a retired defence personnel, was appointed as Sainik Welfare Officer, Barmer, vide order dated 31.7.97 for a period of one year with the clause for extension of the term two years at a time, maximum upto the age of 58 years or for five years, whichever is earlier. The petitioner's services came to an end on 5.8.2000. After a lapse of about 8 years, an FIR was lodged by Mr. R.P.Sharma, District Sainik Welfare Officer, Barmer, alleging misappropriation of fund inter alia by the petitioner while discharging duties as District Welfare Officer, Barmer. The petitioner made challenge to FIR by way of S.B.Cri.Misc. Petition No.19/10 before this court. After perusal of the FIR impugned and the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, the court opined that there are prima facie allegations supported by record which reveal the existence of the charge of defalcation and forgery against the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed, vide order dated 7.2.12. Before the petitioner could file the present petition before this court, questioning the legality of sanction issued by the State Government, charge sheet was filed by the police against the petitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for offences u/s. 409, 120-B IPC vide order dated 22.9.12 passed in Criminal Case No.520/12.

(3.) Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner came to know about the prosecution sanction being issued when the Public Prosecutor submitted before the court while advancing arguments in the criminal miscellaneous petition decided as aforesaid that the State Government has already issued sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner demanded the copy of the prosecution sanction order, which was supplied to him vide letter dated 30.8.12 and therefore, the present petition assailing the order granting prosecution sanction is filed belatedly.