MANU/RH/0308/2002

Equivalent Citation: 2002C riLJ2435, RLW2002(3)Raj1827, 2002(3)WLC 64, 2003(3)WLN537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1313 of 2001
Decided On: 12.02.2002
Appellants: S.K. Bhargava
Vs.
Respondent: State of Rajasthan through PP
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Parihar, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mahesh Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Rizwan Alvi, PP
Case Note:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 401 and 482--Penal Code, 1860--
Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988--
Sections 13(1)(d) and 19--Complaint--Final Report by Investigating Officer-
-Prosecution asked by Court to place material for obtaining sanction of
competent authority--Sanction--Cognizance--Petitions under Section 482,
CrPC and Section 19 of Corruption Act rejected--Revision--Held, since
consideration by competent authority was independent and without
influence of any observation of Court, no further interference is called for--
No merit in revision.
Revision petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
A.K. Parihar, J.
1 . On a complaint been made by one Shri Pooranmal, the Anti Corruption
Department, after investigation, submitted a final report on 4.11.1994 before the
Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court,
vide order dated 24.7.1995, after making certain observations, directed the
prosecution to place the matter before the competent authority for sanction without
observations of the court. Subsequently, on sanction been granted by the competent
authority, cognizance was taken by the trial court against the petitioner and three
other co-accused persons for offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B and
section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
vide order dated 25.5.2000.
2 . Both the orders dated 24.7.1995 as well as 25.5.2000 were challenged by the
petitioner before this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 read with Section
401 Cr.P.C. This court, vide order dated 24.5.2001, observed as under:-

07-09-2018 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com Ramesh Gupta

 "In my opinion, it would be better that the learned counsel for the accused
petitioner must raise all these submissions, which were raised in this
petition, by way of application before the learned Special Judge, ACD, Jaipur
so that he may apply his mind on the points. The learned counsel for the
accused petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Special Judge
positively on the date already fixed by the learned Special Judge and move
an application. On making such applications, the learned Special Judge shall
decide the objections of the accused petitioner and till such objections raised
by the accused petitioner are decided, the learned Special Judge shall not
proceed further in the matter.
it is made clear that in case his submissions are not accepted by the learned
Special judge, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner would be at
liberty to move afresh before this Court."
3. The trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned
PP, vide order dated 6.9.2001, rejected the objections as raised by the petitioner.
Hence the present petition under Section 482 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, challenging the order dated 6.9.2001, passed by the trial court.
4. The main contention of Mr. Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
been that once the final report been submitted by the Investigating Officer, the trial
court had no option but to either accept the final report or reject the same. The trial
court could not have directed prosecution to obtain the sanction of the competent
authority and placing the record before the competent authority for the same. Mr.
Gupta has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Mansukhlal
Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat" (1), as also of this Court in the case of
"Krishandutt Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan" (2).
5. After having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have
carefully gone through the material on record and the order impugned as also the
judgments cited at the Bar.
6 . Though, it is well settled that the trial court, on a final report been submitted,
cannot direct the prosecution to get the sanction for prosecution from the competent
authority and it has been held that if any sanction is granted in such circumstances,
that could not be treated as independent consideration by the sanctioning authority.
However, in the present case, the trial court has only directed the prosecution to
place the matter before the competent authority for sanction without referring to the
observations made by the court. The trial court, after having gone through the record
of the sanction, has observed that the competent authority was, at no point of time,
influenced by the observations of the court which were not even placed before the
competent authority and the sanction for prosecution was granted.
7 . In the present case, when the consideration by the competent authority was
independent and without influence of any observations made by the court, in my
opinion, looking to the nature of allegations, no further interference is called for by
this court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It may also be pertinent
to mention here that no rule is pointed out under which the matter is required to be
placed before the competent authority where a final report is also proposed by the
investigating agency. If that is done then at that stage also the competent authority
after considering the material or record, may also direct the investigation agency for
further investigation or submit chargesheet against the person concerned.

07-09-2018 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com Ramesh Gupta

8 . The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite
distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
9 . Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Copy of
this order be sent to the trial court immediately.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

07-09-2018 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com Ramesh Gupta