Prabhulal Gaur vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Yamin, J.—This is a revision against the order of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur dated 2.1.1998 by which he ordered the Head Quarter of RSEB that it may obtain sanction against the accused petitioner. He also directed that a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. or a writ may be filed to obtain, or it was free to take any course of action according to law in order to obtain sanction sanction against the accused petitioner. He refused to accept the final report on the ground that the sanction was not granted by Competent Authority.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length.

Facts may be narrated in brief. Prabhulal Gaur was Junior Accountant in Treasury Office of Barmer. His duty was to pass bills of various departments. It is alleged that he demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from Bhera Ram complainant. On 22.1.1994 he obtained this amount at 3.50 P.M. and was caught red handed in a raid organised by Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation which investigates such cases. Bhera Ram had reported to the Bureau on 22.1.1994 that arrear bill of Ladu Ram, a Class-IV servant, amounting to Rs. 1177/- was pending in the treasury. Bhera Ram himself went to the Treasury Office on 22.1.1994. He met the accused petitioner whose duty was to pass the bill. The petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 100/-. Prabhu Lal was told the bill was in relation to the arrears of salary of a Class-IV servant. He refused to pay Rs. 100/-. Then the petitioner is alleged to have said that atleast an amount of Rs. 50/- has to be paid then only bill will be passed, and in case the amount was not paid the bill would not be passed. Bhera Ram then requested him to pass the bill and that he was coming back with a sum of Rs. 50/- to pay him. Then Bhera Ram went to the In charge of Anti Corruption Department and lodged report. Trap was organised and petitioner was caught red handed. After investigation papers were submitted to the Competent Authority which refused to grant sanction and hence final report was submitted.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Special Judge of Anti Corruption Cases could not have made such a direction as he has done in the impugned order. He cited Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, in which Hon''ble Supreme Court held that a sanction granted by sanctioning authority mechanically in obedience of Mandamus issued by the High Court was not valid. It has been observed in the said judgment that the validity of sanction depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation. It necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution. In this case the High Court had directed under Article 226 of the Constitution by granting Mandamus to grant sanction to prosecute the accused. Building argument on the basis of this citation, learned Counsel submitted that the learned Special Judge should not have ordered the RSEB to obtain sanction per force as even if granted would be invalid. Learned PP tried to support the order.

It is a case in which a learned Special Judge was anxious to prosecute the petitioner. But his anxiety cannot help as he could not legally pass such an order to obtain sanction. It was beyond his jurisdiction. By passing such order he was himself compelling the prosecution agency to obtain sanction under compulsion. There are so many reasons why a sanction is refused by the Sanctioning Authority. One of the grounds in this case may be that the amount was very petty and the official was Junior Accountant. The learned Judge could not have compelled the prosecution to obtain sanction by such a direction. Consequently, the order of learned Special Judge is not valid and should be quashed.

In view of above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the order of learned Special Judge by which he asked the prosecution to obtain sanction is set aside. He is directed to reconsider the final report and pass necessary orders keeping in view the observations made above.