Arun Kumar Agrawal vs Union of India

Heard on admission. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 3.7.2012, Annexure P/1, passed by respondent no. 1 Union of India refusing to grant sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act").

The petitioner is a resident of Katni. He had made a complaint to the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal, against respondent no. 3 alleging that 72 acres of land was acquired by the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (in short, "the Board") from a private firm namely M/s. Olpert Private Limited, Katni, at higher prices resulting into loss of Rs. 4.29 crore to the State exchequer. At that time respondent no. 3 was posted as Commissioner of the Board. The complaint of petitioner was investigated by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, in detail and thereafter in the year 2003 it submitted a closure report before the concerned special Court. The Special Judge of the court, however, vide order dated 5.5.2003 directed for reinvestigation in the matter. The Special Police Establishment, therefore, reinvestigated the matter and again filed a closure report but it too was rejected by the Special Judge vide order dated 26.4.2005, who also observed that the steps for prosecution of respondent no. 3 be taken. Aggrieved, respondent no. 3 filed Criminal Revision No. 3423/2005 before the High Court which was allowed vide order dated 22.4.2009 with a finding that it was not in the domain or jurisdiction of the Special Judge to ask for grant of sanction and that the said direction was unwarranted. The petitioner in turn challenged the order dated 22.4.2009 before the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1707-1708/2011 which were allowed vide order dated 2.9.2011 on the ground that order of the Special Judge was not neither a command nor an authoritative instruction and that it was in the nature of "Obiter Dictum" or mere passing remark which only amounts to expression of his personal view.

In compliance of the order dated 2.9.2011 passed by the Supreme Court, the matter was referred to respondent no. 1 for consideration and decision of the competent authority with regard to grant of sanction for prosecution of respondent no. 3 under the Act. It is, however, to be noted that the State Government had denied the sanction for prosecution of respondent no. 3 u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under the Indian Penal Code. Respondent no. 1, after considering the entire material placed on record by a detailed reasoned order dated 3.7.2012, has refused to grant sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of the Act for alleged offences of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(d). The concluding paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order are as follows:

There is no evidence on record to indicate that Shri Raghav Chandra, IAS the then Commissioner, MP Housing Board, himself gained out of the said transaction in any manner. There is no evidence that he ever met the private person or had any contact with him at any point of time. The analysis of the case records as indicated above reveals that the basis ingredients for establishing the alleged offence of "criminal misconduct" against Shri Raghav Chandra, IAS (MP: 82) u/s 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not fulfilled. There does not seem to be any element of obtaining for self on any other person any pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, or abuse of his official position or without any public interest. Thus no prima facie case is made out as is also evident from the fact that the matter was investigated twice by different teams and on both occasions, it reached the similar conclusion of non-existence of a prima facie case to file closure reports.

The competent authority accordingly, in view of the above position and after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering all other relevant material/documents, including evidence both oral and documentary submitted by the State Government with the proposal, has decided to accept the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, which was in agreement with the views of this Department, that prima facie no case is made out against Shri Raghav Chandra, IAS (MP: 82) and that the sanction for prosecution u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for alleged offences of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(d) of the said Act, 1988 is refused.

The learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any mistake or illegality in the order under challenge. On perusal of the order we find it to be well founded and unassailable. Also, the order clearly indicates that even the Central Vigilance Commission had advised that no prima facie case against respondent no. 3 was made out for grant of sanction for his prosecution. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed summarily.