SOHAN LAL SINGATHIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Sohan Lal Singathia being aggrieved of the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.01/2016 whereby, the learned court below directed framing of charges against the petitioner and the co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was posted as a Patwari in the district Sri Ganganagar at the relevant point of time. An FIR No.429/2012 came to be registered against the petitioner and the co-accused persons for the above offences with the allegation that they had indulged in criminal misconduct while carrying out mutation of a disputed chunk of agricultural land in relation whereof, certain litigations were pending in the revenue courts. Before the result of investigation could be submitted, the petitioner superannuated from his post. Charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner, Rameshwar Lal Joshi, the then Tehsildar (since retired), Shishpal Singh Girdawar and Jagdish Rai Girdawar, being the public servants involved in the offences and Barkhadas being the beneficiaries of the fraudulent transaction. The matter was taken up by the learned Special Court for consideration of charges and a detailed order was passed on 28.09.2016 directing framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences mentioned above. The said order is under challenge in the instant revision.

(3.) Though the impugned order was challenged on numerous grounds but, while arguing the matter, the basic thrust of arguments advanced by Shri Jagga, learned counsel representing the petitioner, was that the prosecution did not procure a sanction for prosecuting the petitioner in this case as warranted by Section 197 Cr.P.C./ Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act and thus, the court could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner and his trial is vitiated. He relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Anr. Reported in AIR 1996 SC 901 and State of Punjab vs. Labh Singh reported in 2015(1) RLW 236 (SC) and implored the Court to set aside the impugned order on the ground that no sanction to prosecute the petitioner was procured by the investigating agency before submitting the charge-sheet against him.