Rekhraj vs State Of Rajasthan

Farjand Ali, J

The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the District Collector (Land Records), Hanumangarh, whereby prosecution sanction came to be accorded against the petitioner in connection with FIR No.148/2022 registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur Chowki Hanumangarh, for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B IPC.

The brief factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that one Narendra Singh submitted an application dated 21.02.2022 before the Nayab Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Talwada Jheel, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh seeking attestation of mutation on the basis of a Will executed in his favour. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were initiated by the office of the Nayab Tehsildar and after obtaining requisite reports from the concerned Patwaris and completing all procedural formalities, a final order regarding attestation of mutation came to be passed on 22.04.2022.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that despite culmination of the mutation proceedings, the complainant Narendra Singh, actuated by oblique motives and ulterior considerations, lodged a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau on 26.04.2022 alleging demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner and the then Nayab Tehsildar in relation to the mutation proceedings. On the basis thereof, FIR No.148/2022 dated 28.04.2022 came to be registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 120-B IPC, whereafter investigation commenced.

2.2. The petitioner has further contended that though a detailed representation opposing grant of sanction was submitted before the competent authority in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the same was allegedly not considered and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. It has also been averred that the sanction order dated 21.10.2022 has been passed in a cursory and mechanical manner without independent application of mind and contrary to the circulars dated 15.05.2012 and 16.05.2016 issued by the State Government governing grant of prosecution sanction in anti-corruption matters. Hence, the present petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the impugned sanction order as well as the material available on record.

The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the competent authority, while according prosecution sanction, failed to independently apply its mind to the material collected during investigation and that the impugned order is merely a mechanical reproduction of the prosecution case. The said submission, however, does not merit acceptance in light of the record available before this Court.

4.1. It is by now a settled proposition of law that sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is neither an idle formality nor a ceremonial ritual undertaken at the mere behest of the investigating agency. The object underlying Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is twofold, firstly, to afford reasonable protection to honest public servants against frivolous and vexatious prosecution arising out of discharge of official duties; and secondly, to ensure that such protection does not become a shield for corruption by obstructing legitimate prosecution where prima facie material exists. The sanctioning authority, therefore, acts as a statutory filter and not as a court conducting adjudication upon culpability.

4.2. The scope of examination at the stage of according sanction is fundamentally distinct from the degree of scrutiny required during trial. At such stage, the competent authority is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, critically analyze contradictions, adjudicate disputed factual controversies or record definitive findings regarding culpability of the accused. The authority is merely required to examine whether the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses sufficient grounds warranting prosecution.

4.3. The expression "application of mind" occurring in the context of grant of sanction for prosecution cannot be elevated to the pedestal of a detailed judicial adjudication akin to a judgment rendered after conclusion of a full-fledged trial. The scope of consideration at the stage of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is fundamentally distinct from the exercise undertaken by a criminal court while recording a finding of guilt or innocence after appreciation of evidence. What the law contemplates is conscious, informed and meaningful consideration by the competent sanctioning authority of the material collected during investigation so as to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the allegations are not frivolous and that the public servant deserves to be prosecuted before a competent court of law.

4.4. At this juncture, the evidence is neither required to be meticulously weighed nor critically dissected in the manner expected of a trial court while adjudicating culpability. The sanctioning authority is not expected to conduct a mini trial, nor to record findings touching upon proof of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The jurisdiction exercised while granting sanction for prosecution is akin, in substance, to the stage of taking cognizance by a criminal court. The authority is merely required to examine whether the material placed before it discloses sufficient grounds to permit the prosecutorial process to proceed further against the concerned public servant. The consideration is not whether the accusation already stands proved, but whether the allegations supported by investigative material are such that they warrant judicial examination in accordance with law.

4.5. In criminal jurisprudence, "cognizance" signifies the formal application of judicial mind to the facts disclosed in a complaint, police report or other material for the purpose of proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law. It is not synonymous with conviction, nor does it involve meticulous appreciation of evidence. The stage merely postulates satisfaction that the allegations disclose commission of an offence requiring adjudication by the competent court. Similarly, sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not a determination upon the merits of guilt or innocence of the public servant. The competent authority is only required to satisfy itself that a subordinate officer, while discharging sovereign or official duties, is sought to be prosecuted on the basis of material which prima facie discloses commission of a prosecutable offence and, therefore, deserves to be subjected to the process of criminal law. Thus, "application of mind" in the context of prosecution sanction cannot be construed to mean a roving inquiry into reliability, admissibility or sufficiency of evidence as would be undertaken at the stage of framing of charge or final adjudication. What is required is a genuine and conscious consideration of the investigative record to ascertain whether the case is fit to be permitted to proceed further before the criminal court. Absence of elaborate reasoning in the sanction order by itself cannot lead to an inference of non-application of mind when the material considered and the surrounding circumstances demonstrate conscious satisfaction of the competent authority.

4.6. In the present matter, the record reveals that the complainant Narendra Singh had approached the concerned revenue authorities for mutation proceedings on the basis of a Will and allegations subsequently surfaced regarding demand of illegal gratification quantified at Rs.4,000/- per bigha amounting to Rs.16,000/-. The material further demonstrates that prior to registration of the FIR, verification proceedings were conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau and relevant material pertaining to demand verification was collected during enquiry.

A careful and meaningful perusal of the impugned sanction order unmistakably reflects that the competent authority had adverted to the factual allegations, verification proceedings, investigative material and statements recorded during enquiry before arriving at the conclusion that prosecution sanction deserved to be accorded. The sanction order is not cryptic or perfunctory in nature; rather, it manifests conscious consideration of the relevant material available on record.

5.1. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding alleged non-application of mind appears wholly misconceived and devoid of substance. Merely because the sanctioning authority has not undertaken elaborate evidentiary analysis or recorded findings in the manner expected from a court conducting trial, the sanction order cannot be invalidated on that ground alone.

5.2. It deserves emphasis that at the stage of sanction, the competent authority is not required to ascertain whether the prosecution would ultimately culminate into conviction. The truthfulness, reliability and evidentiary worth of the prosecution case remain matters to be adjudicated by the learned trial court upon full-fledged appreciation of evidence during trial. The sanctioning authority is only required to ascertain existence of prima facie material justifying prosecution of the public servant concerned.

Having bestowed thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon comprehensive examination of the impugned order and material available on record, this Court is of the firm and considered opinion that the competent authority has accorded prosecution sanction after due application of mind and in consonance with settled legal principles governing sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. No perversity, arbitrariness, jurisdictional infirmity or patent illegality is discernible warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and the same deserves dismissal.

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. The stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.