Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Rampratap ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 March, 2025
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2025:RJ-JP:5846]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6395/2022
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rampratap Meena, aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Ghati Surajpura, Near New Terminal Tower,
Siddharth Nagar-A Block Jaipur, Presently Section Officer
(Appeal) Home Group-11, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Accused Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022 Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rampratap Meena, aged About 40 Years, R/o Ghati Surajprua Near New Terminal Tower Siddhath Nagar-A Block Jaipur (Presently Section Officer (Appeal) Home Group-11 Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
----Accused/ Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of Personnel Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
2. Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel (A-
3/complaints) Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with Mr. Vaibhav Jeswani & Mr. Aditya Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, learned PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order REPORTABLE:
Reserved on ::: February 10, 2025
Pronounced on ::: March 07, 2025
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (2 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
1. Since the controversy involved in both the petitions i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6395/2022 and S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022 filed by the accused petitioner, arises out of FIR No. 252/2019 dated 22.8.2019 registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short 'the amended Act of 2018') and section 120B IPC, hence, same are being decided by this common order.
2. By filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6395/2022 under section 482 CrPC, the accused-petitioner has prayed to quash the FIR No.252/2019 dated 22.08.2019 registered with Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur and also prayed to quash and set aside the trial proceedings pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, ACD No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Sessions Case No. 27/2021 (CIS No.39/2021), titled as State of Rajasthan V. Rakesh Kumar Meena in regard to FIR No. 252/2019 dated 22.08.2019.
3. By filing S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 315(1)(H) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the accused-petitioner has prayed to accept and allow this writ petition and also to quash and set aside the impugned (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (3 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] prosecution sanction order dated 06.10.2020 (Annex.2) issued by the respondent No.2.
4. The facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant Rajesh Kumar Rao, Police Inspector, Technical Branch, Anti Corruption Bureau, submitted a report, which reads as under:-
vfr- eq[; lfpo ¼x`g½ jktLFkku] t;iqj ds v}Z'kkldh; i= fnukad 04-02-2019 }kjk bl vk'k; dh lwpuk nh xbZ fd 'kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds x`g foHkkx ds xqzi& II esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa }kjk jktLFkku v/khuLFk iqfyl lsok ds nks"kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ls feyhHkxr dj] muls ikfjrks"k.k izkIr dj] muds i{k esa i=kofy;ksa ij fVIi.kh dh tkrh gSA :Yl 34 ds rgr vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk nf.Mr vkSj vihyh; izkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls O;fFkr nks"kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa }kjk jkT;iky egksn; ds le{k iqufoZpkj ;kfpdk nkf[ky dh tkrh gS] ftl ij x`g foHkkx dh fVIif.k;ka pkgh tkrh gSA x`g ¼xqzi& II½ ds dkfeZdksa } kjk feyhHkxr dj iqufoZpkj ;kfpdkvksa ij Bksl vk/kkj ugha gksrs gq, Hkh nks"kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ds i{k esa fVIif.k;ka vafdr dh tkrh gSA vafdr fVIif.k;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd ;g fVIif.k;ka nks"kh iqfyldfeZ;ksa }kjk fy[kh xbZ gS] uk fd x`g ¼xqzi&II½ esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa }kjk bu Hkz"V d`R;ksa esa eq[; Hkwfedk vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh jkds'k dqekj eh.kk }kjk fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA mDr lwpuk dh iqf"V ds Øe esa jkds'k dqekj eh.kk ds eksckby uacj 94142&00145 dh lh-Mh-vkj- izkIr dj fo'ys"k.k djok;k x;k rFkk xksiuh; lR;kiu fd;k x;k] ftlesa ;g ik;k x;k fd jkds'k dqekj eh.kk }kjk bl 'kk[kk esa vihy ls lacaf/kr vkus okyh i=kofy;ksa esa lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa] fo'ks"kr% v/khuLFk iqfyl lsok ds vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ds fo#) dh xbZ n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ls (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (4 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] jkgr iznku fd;s tkus dk vk'oklu nsdj Hkz"V o voS/k lk/kuksa ls fu;fer :i ls fj'or jkf'k ,oa vU; lkexzh izkIr fd;k tkuk izdV gqvkA bl ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds eksckby dks vUrkojks/k ij fy;k tkdj lquus ls izdV gqvk fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr jkds'k dqekj eh.kk }kjk vihy djus okys lacaf/kr dkfeZdksa ls Lo;a ds fy;s rFkk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds uke ls fj'or jkf'k] 'kjkc rFkk vU; lkexzh dh fu;fer :i ls ekax dh tk jgh gS rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk dh xbZ okrkZvksa dk fooj.k i=koyh ij miyC/k djk;k x;k gSA iqfyl fujh{kd ikjley ls djok;s x;s xksiuh; lR;kiu esa Hkh izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/k izekf.kr ik;s x;sA On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No. 252/2019 dated 22.8.2019 was registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A and 8 of the amended Act of 2018 and section 120B IPC. After trap proceedings, the accused-petitioner was arrested.
5. After investigation the police submitted the charge- sheet against the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the amended Act of 2018 and section 354 IPC in the competent Court.
6. The learned trial court after taking cognizance on 24.05.2022, framed the charges against the accused petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the amended Act of 2018 and section 354 IPC. (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (5 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6395/2022 has submitted that the proceedings in entirety, including the complaint by Mr. Rajeeva Swarup, the present F.I.R. against the petitioner and even the trial proceedings are all nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and power on account of being arbitrary, false, malicious and vexatious in nature. Counsel submitted that the original complainant, the then Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Mr. Rajeeva Swarup on suspicion wrote a letter dated 04.02.2019 to the ACB Department leveling charges against the then Joint Secretary Ms. Seema Singh, along with the petitioner and other unnamed personnel, however, Mr. Swarup arbitrarily, malafidely and maliciously solely chose the accused petitioner for investigation and in pursuance of the letter of Mr. Swarup dated 04.02.2019, the ACB unlawfully initiated the investigation. The contents of letter dated 04.02.2019 are that "unfortunately, even my repeated directions have had no effects. Ms. Seema Singh retired on Jan. 31st, 2019. It is most surprising that just before her retirement she signed 32 such files and sent, the recommendations." Counsel submitted that it is evident from the aforesaid letter that the allegation was specifically with regard to Ms. Seema Singh, despite this the accused petitioner was arbitrarily and unlawfully forced to face the wrath which is prima facie (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (6 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] vexatious, malicious and excessive abuse of power and position by senior officials. The ACB Department on malicious instructions of senior officials of Department of Home namely Mr. Rajeeva Swarup, the then Additional Chief Secretary (Home) who later-on was promoted to the post of Chief Secretary only acted against the accused petitioner and arbitrarily, discriminatorily, illicitly, vexatious, maliciously and malafidely did not take any action against the other personnel of the Department of the accused petitioner, despite cogent fact such as Ms. Seema Singh was the signing authority on all those alleged documents. Counsel further submitted that Mr. Swarup, himself granted an approval as well as extensions to monitor and intercept the mobile phone of the petitioner for a period exceeding the statutory limit. Counsel also submitted that Mr. Swarup, as soon as promoted on the post of Chief Secretary of Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 02.07.2020 maliciously attempted to fasten the prosecution sanction which was ordered vide order dated 06.10.2020, however, even after almost 4 months of passing, the ACB did not file the complaint before the learned Trial Court. This is violation of the principle of "Nemo judex in causa sua" as the original complainant as well as the approvals for prosecution has been granted by the same person Mr. Swarup. Counsel further submitted that from all the facts it is abundantly clear that the proceedings are the result of arbitrary selective, (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (7 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] malicious, false and vexatious actions of Mr. Swarup in order to harass and defame the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that as per mandate under Section 17-A of the Act of 1988, previous sanction is necessary for initiating investigation and since no previous approval was taken by the Investigating Agency i.e. ACB in the instant case, before initiating investigation (since monitoring and interception of mobile of the petitioner), therefore, the entire proceedings are non est and void ab initio. Counsel also submitted that in regard to Section 17A of the amended Act of 2018 the concerned department has issued multiple guidelines including standard operating procedures. Counsel further submitted that the Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan vide letter No. F. 16(1) Home-11/2013 Part dated 27.05.2022 has issued "Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for processing of cases under Section 17A of Act, 1988.
Counsel also submitted that the issue is no more res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 has explicitly stated that the compliance of Section 17A of the amended Act of 1988 is mandatory.
Counsel also submitted that Rajasthan High Court, Principal Bench at Jodhpur, in the matter of Tara Ram Mali & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.. (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (8 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Petition No. 3592/2021) on 22.09.2021 and Rai Sahab Swami v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6477/2021) on 06.12.2021 granted interim order, in which without taking previous sanction from the competent authority in compliance of Section 17-A of the Act of 1988, F.I.R. has been lodged by the A.C.B./Investigating Agency. The Hon'ble High Court while taking into consideration the provisions of Section 17-A of the amended Act stayed the trial proceedings in favour of the accused petitioners therein.
Counsel further submitted that the allegation under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioner is false, baseless, and malicious in nature. Counsel also submitted that the affidavits sworn-in by Smt. Rajbala and Pramila Kumari Chahar dated 23.10.2019 and those of Smt. Mamta Sharma and Smt. Pooja Kanwar dated 25.08.2020 clearly state that the ACB has forced and under severe duress and threat they were made to make a false statement which was recorded by the ACB under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Counsel also submitted that the letter dated 10.05.2022 issued by the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, which was in regard to the letter of the accused petitioner dated 29.09.2021 which was in compliance of the judgment of Rajasthan State Information Commission dated (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (9 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] 29.03.2020, explicitly stated that the department did not receive any complaint against the accused petitioner from any women. Thereby, the entire proceedings were mere fabrication of facts in order to harass and defame the accused petitioner.
Counsel also submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring the cogent facts and ordered to frame charges vide order dated 24.05.2022, which is excessive and abuse of process of law.
Counsel further submitted that the mobile phone of the accused petitioner was monitored and intercepted by violating the Indian Telegraph Act and rules made therein. Thereby, such actions of the ACB Department are violative of Right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Counsel submitted that prima facie error is the reason for monitoring and interception of mobile of the accused petitioner having number 94142-00145 which is stated in the order dated 05.02.2022 that "...is possibly being used for illegal activities relating to incitement to the commission of an offence affecting public safety and whereas it is necessary and expedient to prevent such situation by keeping the above mentioned Mobile Number under observation, for a period of 60 days." However, the allegations against the petitioner was by no stretch of imagination would fall within the scope of "public safety".
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (10 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Counsel also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 637 has explained scope of "public safety". Thereby, the orders dated 05.02.2019, 02.04.2019 and 30.05.2019 regarding the monitoring and interception is based on fabricated, false and arbitrary reasoning as there was absence of "reason".
Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 301 framed guidelines regarding phone tapping. In light of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors., in Writ Petition No. 2367/2019 decided on 22.10.2019, has defined the scope of "public safety". The ACB Department failed to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and mis-interpreted the "public safety" to monitor or intercept the petitioner, which is violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Counsel also submitted that as per Rule 419A(2) of Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 (for short 'the Rules of 1951'), framed and notified under section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act of 1885'), the order issued by the competent authority for inception of any message or class of messages under section 5(2) of the Act of 1885 read with (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (11 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Rule 419A(1) of the Rules of 1951, such an order shall contain the reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the Review Committee constituted under Rule 419A(16) within the period of 7 working days and the Committee shall meet at least once in two months. When the review committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with provisions given in rules, it may set aside the directions. In the present matter, it is quintessential to state that there is no document on record- either as part of charge sheet or otherwise to establish the observance of the aforementioned procedure that is sacrosanct.
Counsel further submitted that the Rajasthan State Information Commission vide order dated 23.03.2022 in regard to the interception directs the State Public Information Officer and Deputy Government Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Jaipur, to provide needful information but the concerned authorities tried to frame up and intentionally tried to obviate the matter and no requisite information has been received under Right To Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005').
Counsel submitted that in light of the above facts, it is clear that the entire investigation against the accused petitioner was merely abuse of power and violation of the due process of law and post to harass and defame the petitioner. (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (12 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Also, such actions are infringing Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Counsel also submitted that neither any recovery of bribe amount has been made from the petitioner nor any demand was made by him nor he accepted the money. Counsel also submitted that the delinquent Police Officer whose reports were allegedly tampered by the petitioner which helped in reinstatement in service has not been proved by any evidence (direct or corroborative).
Counsel also submitted that the transcript of bribery demand talk between Shri Parasmal Panwar, Police Inspector, ACB and Shri Rakesh Kumar Meena (present petitioner) which was recorded in the micro SD card installed in the voice recorder just against the trap proceedings against Shri Rakesh Kumar Meena (present petitioner) Section Officer Home Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan on dated 17.05.2019 and 18.07.2019 states that the demand for bribe has not been clearly found in the said conversation, which was overlooked during cognizance which apparently vindicates the arbitrariness of the concerned authorities. Counsel also submitted that the ACB has failed to provide any incriminating evidences against the petitioner which establishes the allegations. Hence, the entire proceedings were selectively used to harass and defame the petitioner. (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (13 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Thereby the FIR No. 252/2019 and the trial proceedings are bound to be quashed and set-aside.
Counsel also submitted that the amended Act of 2018 has no provision under Section 7/7A, but instead the parent legislation i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has Section 7 & 7A. Also, Section 7A was inserted in the parent legislation i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide amendment, short titled as "Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018".
8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and submitted that the impugned FIR was lodged by the complainant after verification and after adopting the process of law. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Agency, it is proved that there are specific allegations against the accused petitioner. Thus, no interference is required to be made by this Court.
9. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22/2022, counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has submitted that the impugned sanction is not sustainable in the eyes of the law for being contrary to the provisions of the facts, the law and the relevant rules pertaining to the case. Counsel further submitted that the impugned sanction is not sustainable in the eyes of the law because the same has been (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (14 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] issued in the violation of the principles without giving an adequate opportunity to the petitioner. Counsel also submitted that the prosecution has to satisfy that at the time of sending the matter for the grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, unless it is extremely comprehensive or voluminous all the facts and circumstances of the case should be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an independent application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned vis-a-vis the material placed before it. Counsel further submitted that it is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having had full knowledge of the material facts related to the case. Counsel also submitted that the grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in this regard must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought. Counsel further submitted that it is to be kept in mind that the sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not a mundane or routine exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (15 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] frivolous and malicious prosecution. Counsel also submitted that the authority who issued sanction was not competent to issue impugned sanction, as accused petitioner cannot be removed from his office by this authority.
Counsel also submitted that the order of sanction must prima facie disclose that the sanctioning authority has considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same.
Counsel further submitted that if the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it should be further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind, which is clearly indicating in this case.
Counsel also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (16 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in 2014 (14) SCC 295 has laid down the following guidelines which need to be followed with complete strictness by the competent authorities while considering grant of sanction:-
(i) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statement of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(ii) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(iii) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(iv) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (17 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.
Counsel also submitted that the permission to intercept the mobile phone of the petitioner is in blatant violation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 framed and notified under Sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record purporting to be the previous approval accorded under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the order dated 30.04.2008 delivered by teh Madras High Court in the case of P. Govindan vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, CB CID, Dharmapuri (Crl. R.C. NO.272 of 2006).
10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and submitted that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority granted prosecution sanction after going through the material made available to him. Thus, no interference is warranted in the matter.
11. Heard learned counsels appearing for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and gone through the entire material including the FIR, (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (18 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] charge-sheet, order of framing the charges including the prosecution sanction granted in the matter etc.
12. From the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the accused petitioner, following issues have been found to be raised:-
A. Whether complainant or a person at whose instance the criminal case has been registered can issue the prosecution sanction to prosecute a person who has been made as an accused on the basis of the allegations made in the letter/ complaint issued by that Authority?
B. Whether the prosecution sanction in the present case on 06.10.2020 has been issued without due application of mind by the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority as is required before issuing the prosecution sanction?
C. Whether the permission from the Competent Authority as required under Section 17A of the amended Act of 2018 is sought for an inquiry to be conducted prior to registration of the case, as the present case has been registered as regards certain decisions/ recommendations alleged to have been made by the present accused petitioner and the Officer authorized i.e. the Joint Secretary, Department of Home and if not then what would be the effect on criminal proceedings?(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (19 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] D. The present criminal case is said to have been lodged with the allegations that certain comments favouring the delinquent police personnels have been forwarded by the Home Department for the disposal of the review petitions to be decided by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan and those decisions/ recommendations/ comments are said to have been signed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department named; Miss Seema Singh but she has not been made as an accused then the proceedings against other personnel can proceed?
E. Whether there is cogent evidence of demand of bribe from petitioner's side or there is any evidence of acceptance of bribe and further any kind or money or documents have been recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner or at his instance?
F. Whether during search of the house of the accused petitioner, anything incriminating material is said to have been seized which could connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences?
G. Whether the mobile number of the accused petitioner was put on surveillance for a period of 201 days without following the due process of law and what would be its effect?(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (20 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] H. Whether there is no evidence on record so as to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences and there is nothing incriminating on record which could led to conviction of the accused petitioner to the said offences?
13. From the facts on record including the averments of the FIR, it is borne out that a letter dated 04.02.2019 was written by the then Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Rajasthan, Shri Rajeeva Swarup to the ACB to the effect that some personnels of the Department of Home Group-II in collusion with the delinquent police personnels on receiving some rewards from them are making comments favourable to such delinquent police personnels for consideration of review petitions filed by such delinquent police personnels under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules. It is stated in the letter that the said comments are written by the delinquent police personnels and not by the employees of the Department of Home Group-II and in doing so the prime role is of the Section Officer Mr. Rakesh Kumar Meena (petitioner). For verification of the said allegations, the CDR of the mobile number of the accused petitioner was verified wherein it is said to have been found that the petitioner is receiving undue rewards from the delinquent police officers for favouring them and thereafter the FIR No.252/2019 was registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District ACB, Jaipur for the offences punishable under (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (21 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] sections 7, 7A and 8 of the amendment Act, 2018 and section 120B IPC was registered. During investigation, the residential house of the accused petitioner was also searched. During the intervening period the mobile number of the accused petitioner was also put on surveillance and it is alleged that there are details which speak of demand of undue rewards by the accused petitioner for favouring the delinquent police personnels.
14. After completion of the investigation, keeping the investigation pending under section 173(8) CrPC for seeking prosecution sanction, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Competent Court against the accused petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the amendment Act, 2018 and section 354 IPC. It is also revealed that for seeking the prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner, the proposals were sent to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home on 17.10.2019.
15. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Jaipur, vide order dated 06.10.2020 issued the prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner which was submitted before the Court concerned on 19.01.2021 and thereafter final charge-sheet was submitted in the matter. In the final charge-sheet, the ACB concluded as under:- (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (22 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] mDr izdj.k esa vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo x`g foHkkx "kklu lfpoky; t;iqj ds i=kad i-2¼2½¼81½dk@d&3@f"kdk@19 fnukad 06-10-2019 ls vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk dk vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr izkIr gqbZ tks fnukad 19-01-2021 dk ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh tk pqdh gSA izdj.k ds vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk ds ?kj dh [kkuk ryk"kh esa feys lafnX/k nLrkost@cSadj pSd@izksiVhZ laca/kh nLrkostkr ds lEca/k esa vuqla/kku ls ,sls dksbZ lk{; izkIr ugha gq;s ftlls mDr izdj.k esa lfEefyr fd;s tk;s rFkk cSad pSd o izkWiVhZ ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls vk; ls vf/kd laEifr dh tkap dh tkosxhA vuqla/kku ds nkSjku Jh eqjkjhyky] Jh dqynhi flag] Jh ftrsUnz flag] Jh dkywjke ds c;ku 161 lhvkjihlh ls Li'V gksrk gS fd fjO;q ;kfpdk ls lacaf/kr i=kofy;ka vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk }kjk la/kkfjr dh tkrh Fkh] ftlls Li'V gksrk gS fd jkds"k dqekj eh.kk }kjk vius O;SfDrd gSfl;r dk izHkko tekdj dk;Z djus ds fy, dgk tkrk Fkk rFkk i=kofy;ksa esa fu;e fo:) tkdj O;fDrxr ykHk izkIr djus ds fy, voS/k ikfjrks'k.k dh ekax djrk FkkA vuqla/kku esa ik;k x;k fd funs"kd jkT; fof/k foKku iz;ksx"kkyk t;iqj ds ia=kd 265@19 fnukad 18-11-2019 ls ijh{k.k fjiksVZ e; iSu MªkbZo izkIr gqvk] ftldks Lora= xokgku dh mifLFkr esa QnZ MkmuyksM ¼dkWih½ isu MªkbZo ekdZ ,Dl rS;kj dj pkj lhfM;ka rS;kj dh xbZ Fkh] mDr ijh{k.k fjiksVZ esa vkjksih dk vU; O;fDr;ksa ls OgkVlvi eSlst ij okrkZ djuk ik;k x;k gS ftlesa vkjksih }kjk fjO;w ;kfpdkvksa ds laca/k esa lwpuk;sa lk>k dh xbZ rFkk Lo;a dh O;SfDrd gSfl;r dk izHkko fn[kk;k x;kA ftlls Li'V gksrk gS fd vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk x`g foHkkx vihy "kklu lfpoky; t;iqj esa i=kofy;ksa (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (23 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] dk la/kkfjr djrk Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ;ksa ls feydj muds i{k esa dk;Z djokrk FkkA izdj.k ds lEiw.kZ vuqla/kku c;kukr] ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ik;k tkrk gS fd vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk iq= Jh jkeizrki eh.kk] mez 38 lky] fuoklh ?kkVh lwjtiqjk] U;w VfeZuy Vkoj ds ikl] fl)kFkZ uxj] ,&CykWd] t;iqj rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g xzqi&11] "kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj }kjk nks'kh dkfeZd ls feyhHkxr djrs gq, vius inh; drZO;ksa dh nq:i;ksx djrs gq, dbZ vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ls Lo;a ds fy;s ,oa vU; dkfeZdksa ds fy;s voS/k ikfjrks'k.k dh ekax djus] vius in ,oa izkf/kdkj dk vuqfpr iz;ksx djrs gq, vius ifjfprksa dks muds voS/k d`R;ksa ds fy, iqfyl laj{k.k iznku djrs gq, muls fj"or ds :i esa vU; lkexzh izkIr djus rFkk jktdk;Z esa ijs"kku fd;s tkus dk Hk; fn[kk;k tkdj v/khuLFk efgykdfeZ;ksa dk "kkjhfjd "kks'k.k dk izLrko o vuqjks/k fd;k tkus ,oa vU; efgykdfeZ;ksqa ds fo:) vf"k'V fVIif.k;ka djuk ik;s tkus ls /kkjk 7] 7, Hkz'Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la"kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 o 354 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dk tqeZ izekf.kr gSA izdj.k esa vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk ds vykok ,df=r fd;s x;s lk{; ,oa nLrkostksa ls vU; fdlh ds fo:) dksbZ vijk/k izekf.kr ugha ik;k tkdj vuqla/kku fd;k tkuk "ks'k ugha gSA vr% vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g xzqi&11 "kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds fo:) yfEcr 173¼8½ lhvkjihlh dh dk;Zokgh dks can dj vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk iq= Jh jkeizrki eh.kk] mez 38 lky] fuoklh ?kkVh lwjtiqjk] U;w VfeZuy Vkoj ds ikl] fl)kFkZ uxj] ,&CykWd] t;iqj rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g xzqi&11] "kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds fo:) iw.kZ pktZ"khV izLrqr gSA (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (24 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] vr% Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk iq= Jh jkeizrki eh.kk] mez 38 lky] fuoklh ?kkVh lwjtiqjk] U;w VfeZuy Vkoj ds ikl] fl)kFkZ uxj] ,&CykWd] t;iqj rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g xzqi&11] "kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds fo:) pktZ"khV la[;k 234@2019 fnukad 06-12-2021 varxZr /kkjk 7] 7, Hkz'Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼lalksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 o 354 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk esa fdrk dh tkdj jkT; ljdkj dh foKfIr la[;k ,Q&14¼1½,e@57 esa iznRr "kfDr;ksa ds vuq"kj.k esa cgSfl;r izHkkjh vf/kdkjh Jheku~ fo"ks'k U;k;k/kh"k] ls"ku U;k;ky;] Hkz'Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] dze la- 01] t;iqj ds le{k is"k dj fuosnu gS fd ckn lek;r lywd dkuwuh Qjekus dh d`ik djsaA
16. When the matter was sent for approval of the prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner, the Dy. Secretary of the Department of Personnel made comments on the file as under:-
61- vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj&foe"kZ fd;k x;kA funsZ"kkuqlkj izdj.k dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA izdj.k ls lacaf/kr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ] ,lhch dh vuqla/kku fjiksVZ] okrkZvksa dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV] vkjksih }kjk cpko esa izLrqr fd;s x;s vH;kosnu ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k vU; nLrkostksa dk ijh{k.k ,oa foospu fd;k x;k ftldk fo"ys'k.k fuEu izdkj gS %& izdj.k esa vkjksih vf/kdkjh ?kVuk ds le;
vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g ¼xzqi&11½ foHkkx] "kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds in ij inLFkkfir FkkA vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] x`g foHkkx ds
v)Z"kkldh; i= fnukad 04-02-2019 }kjk ,lhch dks bl vk"k; dh lwpuk nh xbZ fd lhlh, :Yl 34 ds rgr (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (25 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] vuq"kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk nf.Mr vkSj vihyh; izkf/kdkjh ds vkns"k ls O;fFkr nks'kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa }kjk jkT;iky egksn; ds le{k iqufoZpkj ;kfpdk nkf[ky dh tkrh gS] ftl ij x`g foHkkx dh fVIif.k;ka pkgh tkrh gSA x`g xzqi&11 foHkkx esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa }kjk jktLFkku v/khuLFk iqfyl lsok ds nks'kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ls feyhHkxr dj muls ikfjrks'k.k izkIr dj dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj ugha gksrs gq, Hkh nks'kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ds i{k esa fVIif.k;ka vafdr dh tkrh gSA bl Hkz'V d`R;ksa esa eq[;
Hkqfedk vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk }kjk fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA bl ij ,lhch }kjk dk;Zokgh djrs gq, vkjksih ds eksckbZy Qksu dks lfoZykal ij fy;k tkdj xksiuh; lR;kiu esa lwpuk ds rF;ksa dh iw.kZ:is.k iq'Vh gksus ij vuqla/kku fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] x`g ds v-"kk- i= fnukad 04-02-2019 ds vuqlkj ik;k x;k fd ,lhlh] x`g foHkkx }kjk rRdkyhu lacaf/kr la;qDr "kklu lfpo o vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks vius d{k esa cqykdj nks'kh v/khuLFk iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk izLrqr iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij rF;ksa ls foijhr fVIi.kh fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dqN izdj.kksa dk mnkgj.k nsdj ,slh vuisf{kr fVIi.kh ugha fd;s tkus dh fgnk;r nh xbZ ijUrq mlds ckotwn Hkh dqy 32 i=kofy;ksa esa ls 20 i=kofy;ksa esa iwoZ esa fn;s x;s n.M dks de djrs gq, ekSf[kd psrkouh fn;s tkus gsrq fVIi.kh vafdr dh xbZA izdj.k esa leLr nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.k izkIr gksus ij lacaf/kr fyfid }kjk i=koyh ij izLrqr fd;k tkrk FkkA izdj.kksa esa leLr rF;ksa dk voyksdu ,oa lexz ijh{k.k djus ds i"pkr~ lacaf/kr la;qDr "kklu lfpo }kjk fu.kZ;kRed fVIi.kh@izLrko fof"k'B "kklu lfpo] x`g ds ek/;e ls ,lh,l] x`g dks vuqeksnukFkZ ,oa vuqekspu i"pkr~ lfpo] jkT;iky egksn; dks vxzsf'kr fd;s (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (26 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] tkrs FksA i=koyh ij izLrqr fu.kZ;kFkZ izLrko la;qDr "kklu lfpo }kjk gLrk{kfjr gS ftlesa vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dh dksbZ izR;{k Hkwfedk izrhr ugha gksrh gS fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo }kjk ,lhch dks nkSjkus vuqla/kku ntZ djk;s c;ku esa iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa vihy vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s n.Mkns"k dks de djus vFkok ;Fkkor j[kus gsrq vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks funsZf"kr dj uksV rS;kj djkus dk dFku fd;k gSA bl izdkj iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa la;qDr "kklu lfpo dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s tkus okys fu.kZ;kRed izLrko rS;kj djus esa vkjksih vf/kdkjh dh vizR;{k ,oa lafdz; Hkwfedk jgh gSA lkFk gh iquZfopkj izdj.kksa esa lacaf/kr vkjksih iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh ls ckj&ckj nwjHkk'k@OgkVlvi ij lEidZ dj vius izdj.k ds laca/k esa ppkZ dh tk jgh Fkh ftlls Hkh Li'V gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa fu.kZ;kRed izLrko rS;kj fd;s tkus esa vkjksih dh vizR;{k ijUrq egRoiw.kZ lfdz; Hkwfedk FkhA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij fu.kZ;kRed [email protected] izLrqr fd;s tkus dk nkf;Ro rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo dk gh Fkk fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo } kjk mDr dk;Z vizR;{k :i ls vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk ls djok;k tkrk FkkA ftlls rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo dh jktdk;Z esa ykijokgh rS;kj fd;s x;s izLrkoksa ij vkilh lgefr ,oa feyhHkxr dh laHkkouk ls Hkh bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fj"or ekax ds laca/k esa vkjksih ds eksckbZy ls gqbZ okrkZvksa dh QnZ VªkalfdIV ds vuqlkj vkjksih dks laHkor;k ,lhch dk;Zokgh dk iwoZ vans"kk gks x;k Fkk ftlds dkj.k lacaf/kr ;kfpdkdrkZvksa o vU; ls og eksckbZy ij ysu&nsu dh ckrsa u dj f}oFkhZ ckrsa gh djrk Fkk vkSj dk;Z ds laca/k esa feydj ckr djus rFkk dk;Z djokus dk vk"oklu nsrk FkkA vkjksih } (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (27 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] kjk dk;Z dh ,sot esa fj"or jkf"k dh ekax QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls Li'V ugha gS fdarq vuqfpr ikfjrks'k.k ds :i esa jsM pkbZu] ,lh vkfn dh ekax fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa okrkZvksa dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd vkjksih }kjk vuqfpr ikfjrks'k.k dh ,sot esa lacaf/kr ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks i=koyh dh orZeku fLFkfr] izdj.k esa dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh ,oa fVIi.kh ls lacaf/kr lwpuk ls voxr djkrk Fkk tcfd iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh dh xksiuh;rk cukbZ j[kh tkuh pkfg, Fkh] tks vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dk inh; drZO; ,oa nkf;Ro Hkh FkkA izdj.k esa okrkZvksa dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd vkjksih }kjk dk;kZy; esa vius v/khuLFk inLFkkfir efgyk dkfeZdksa ls vius inh; izHkko dks fn[kkrs gq, mudks dk;Z esa lg;ksx djus ds cnys muls v"kksHkuh; o v"yhy okrkZ;sa djuk] mu ij viuk vf/kdkjh trkuk] vf"k'V fVIi.kh;ka djuk ,oa mudh bPNk ds fo:) ;kSu laca/k ds fy, ncko Mkydj vkeaf=r fd;s tkus dk vuqfpr vkijkf/kd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj lexz ijh{k.k ls ,lhch }kjk vkjksih Jh jkds"k eh.kk ij yxk;s x;s leLr vkjksi izFke n`'V~;k izekf.kr gksuk ik;s x;s gSA 62- vr% izdj.k esa izFke n`'V~;k vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s tkus ls Hkz'Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 19 ,oa naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 197 ds rgr iznRr "kfDr;ksa ds varxZr Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk] rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh ¼vihy½ x`g&11 "kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds fo:) vUrxZr /kkjk 7] 7, Hkz'Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la"kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 ,oa /kkjk 354 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds Lohd`fr fn;s tkus ds fu.kZ;kFkZ izLrqr gSA
17. The aforesaid comments were forwarded by the Dy. Secretary for approval on 03.07.2020 which were then (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (28 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] recommended by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and sent to the Chief Secretary Shri Rajeeva Swarup, on whose letter the present case has been registered who assumed the charge of the Chief Secretary on that very day i.e. 03.07.2020 and on the very same day, he approved that prosecution sanction and may be given without there being any discussion with the authorities and that too on the day when he assumed the charge of the Chief Secretary and it can be kept in mind that how much busy a person remains in accepting the greetings, talking to the Officers on the date he assumes the charge of the Chief Secretary and very surprisingly on the very same day he gave approval for prosecution sanction in the case of the petitioner and that too in peculiar facts that it was at his instance i.e. the letter dated 04.02.2019 on the basis of which the criminal case has been registered. It is also pointed out during the course of arguments that Shri Rajeeva Swarup, ACS (Home) was the Officer who has granted permission to intercept the mobile phone of the petitioner, meaning-thereby, the Officer who has granted / approved the prosecution sanction is in a manner, is the complainant and the complainant cannot be a judge of his own. Mr. Rajeeva Swarup has issued a letter for inquiry and registration of the case into the allegations made in the letter dated 04.02.2019 and thereafter he himself has issued permission for keeping in observation the mobile phone of the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (29 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] accused petitioner and thereafter on receiving the proposals for prosecution sanction from the ACB he had accorded the prosecution sanction on 03.07.2020 on the very same day when the said file was forwarded to his office through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and accorded his approval on the very same day when he assumed the charge of the Chief Secretary.
18. Mr. Rajeeva Swarup, Addl. Chief Secretary (Home) on 04.02.2019 wrote a letter to the D.G., ACB. The contents of the said letter are as under:-
"Dear Mr. Tripathi, I am extremely concerned about the working in Group XI of Home Department and have every reason to believe that the officials working in that Group are in connivance with the delinquent police officials of the Rajasthan Subordinate Police Services and, accordingly, are putting up files with notings in favour of the police officials concerned on acceptance of gratification.
Under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, any official punished by the Disciplinary Authority and aggrieved with the orders of the Appellate Authority, may submit a Review Petition before the Governor. In such cases the Governor's Secretariat seeks comments from the Administrative Department, which form the basis of final decision. These comments, in the case of Police office's are dealt with in Group XI of Home Department.(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (30 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] In Subordinate Police Services, the Disciplinary Authority is specified for each of the ranks, (Constable to Inspector), which is District SP / Range IG concerned (and in some cases the DGP) and the Appellate Authority is the next higher official. The delinquent police official, in addition to the grounds stated in the appeal, is also provided an opportunity of personal hearing in the appeal, wherein he brings to notice of the appellate authority the factual inconsistencies in the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority. It is reasonable to expect that both the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the Appellate Authority, being senior and responsible officers, apply due mind and a speaking order is issued. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, there remains little possibility of the issues raised by the delinquent official in his defense to remain unaddressed, first at the stage of the initial isciplinary enquiry and then subsequently in appeal. Hence, in Departmental examination, unless any major factual inconsistency is evident in the order of the Appellate Authority, the normal course of action in the Departmental note should be to recommend rejection of the Petition.
I was surprised to receive files where in the bulk majority of the cases the Group was recommending acceptance of the Review Petition, and, in most cases, it was stated in the comments to be sent to Raj Bhawan that the punishment be changed to "unwritten warning", even wherein "censure" had been accorded, or even when the Appellate Authority had reduced the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In one such case, the punishment had been imposed by the DGP and upheld by the then ACS Home with a detailed speaking order. And even in such case the lower officials presumed they had more wisdom in finding both orders faulty and lacking due application of mind! It is (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (31 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] pertinent to mention that "unwritten warning" is not considered a punishment and, hence, does not affect the service record or promotion.
In going over the files, I have observed that instead of examining whether any new fact of factual inconsistency was raised in the Review Petition which was not addressed earlier in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, reliance was more placed on the plea of the delinquent police official. In many instances I also observed that the manner of noting and explanation of technical facts stated in the comments were as if written by the delinquent police official concerned rather than the Group officials who have little idea of police functioning and procedures at field level.
How is it possible that the decisions of the Disciplinary /Appellate Authorities in Police Department (all senior officials) of the Police Department across the State, in the bulk majority of the cases, are faulty?
I called the then Joint Secretary, Ms. Seema Singh and verbally told her that I did not appreciate the manner of examination and recommendation. Only in the exceptional cases where factual inconsistency is established should the Department recommend reduction / cancellation of the punishment imposed. This was repeated at least 4 times, on different occasions, and on two occasions, even the Section Officer concerned, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Meena, was summoned along with the then JS and my directions given verbally (in one instance on file too). I had even gone to the extent of indicating what implication their "sympathetic" comments had.(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (32 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Unfortunately, even my repeated directions have had no effect. Ms. Seema Singh retired on Jan. 31st, 2019. It is most surprising that just before her retirement she signed 32 such files and sent, the recommendations in which are as follows:
29.01.1 30.01.19 31.01.19 Total 9 Rejection of 0 4 1 5 Petition (15.6%) Reduction of 0 3 3 6 punishment Reject and 0 0 1 1 Remand Change to 2 9 9 20 Verbal Warning (62.5%) (unercorded) Total 2 16 14 32 What was the need to dispose of the files in such large numbers just prior to relinquishing office, and against the directions of the ACS home? Only in 15.6% cases were the orders found appropriate.
I have been given to understand that the main role in this is being played by the Section Officer, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Meena.
In view of the reasons stated above, I would request you to kindly put Shri Rakesh Kumar Meena, Section Officer, Group XI, Home Department, under surveillance and take further necessary action so that this racket of connivance with the delinquent police officials is busted."
19. From the contents of the aforesaid letter it is very much clear that all the comments and recommendations were signed by the then Joint Secretary, Department of Home Miss (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (33 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Seema Singh. It has also come on record that none of the comments and recommendations alleged to be in favour of alleged police personnels for consideration of their review petitions filed under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, bears the signatures of the petitioner. In the complaint/ letter dated 04.02.2019 the then Addl. Chief Secretary (Home) has clearly stated that Miss Seema Singh has signed 32 such files and sent the recommendations in favour of delinquent police personnels. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused petitioner with one of the observation as under:-
izdj.k esa vkjksih Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk ds ?kj dh [kkuk ryk"kh esa feys lafnX/k nLrkost@cSadj pSd@izksiVhZ laca/kh nLrkostkr ds lEca/k esa vuqla/kku ls ,sls dksbZ lk{; izkIr ugha gq;s ftlls mDr izdj.k esa lfEefyr fd;s tk;s rFkk cSad pSd o izkWiVhZ ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls vk; ls vf/kd laEifr dh tkap dh tkosxhA
20. The file as regards the issuance of the prosecution sanction also bears certain comments / notings which clearly speak as under:-
;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij fu.kZ;kRed [email protected] izLrqr fd;s tkus dk nkf;Ro rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo dk gh Fkk fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo }kjk mDr dk;Z vizR;{k :i ls vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk ls djok;k tkrk FkkA ftlls rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo dh jktdk;Z esa (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (34 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] ykijokgh rS;kj fd;s x;s izLrkoksa ij vkilh lgefr ,oa feyhHkxr dh laHkkouk ls Hkh bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
21. The prosecution sanction has been granted vide order dated 06.10.2020 after the approval of the then Chief Secretary Mr. Rajeeva Swarup without due application of mind. The prosecution sanction has been accorded against the accused petitioner for prosecuting him for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the amendment Act of 2018 and section 354 IPC. The case has been lodged and the charge-sheet has been filed as regards certain comments/ recommendations made by the Department of Home, said to be in favour of delinquent police personnels for consideration of their review petitions filed under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules.
22. The complaint/ letter dated 04.02.2019 written by the person namely; Mr. Rajeeva Swarup has accorded the prosecution sanction as stated in the letter that the comments/ recommendations were sent by the then Joint Secretary Miss Seema Singh, who has now retired and he has found such 32 files of such a nature to which the accused petitioner is said to be an accomplice.
23. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, the Department of Personnel while proceeding the file for prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner also observed that it was the responsibility of the Joint Secretary to make recommendations/ comments as (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (35 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] regards consideration of the review petitions filed by the delinquent police personnels, however, the then Joint Secretary (Home) was getting comments/ recommendations prepared by the accused petitioner in collusion with her, cannot be denied. Even after certain observations of the Investigating Officer and the comments made on the file during the time when the matter was processed for issuing /approving the prosecution sanction against the petitioner, the Authority did not care to consider the said aspects. It is pertinent to mention here that the then Joint Secretary, Department of Home Miss Seema Singh who is said to be the signatory, responsible and accountable for the alleged comments and recommendations, has not been made as an accused in the present case. It has not come on record that none of the recommendations / comments said to have been made in favour of delinquent police personnels, bears the signatures of the accused petitioner and more surprisingly when the authority who has issued the prosecution sanction in his letter dated 04.02.2019 on which the present criminal case has been lodged, has stated that the comments/ recommendations seem to be written by the delinquent police personnel concerned rather than the Group Officials. The relevant para of comments/ recommendations dated 04.02.2019 is as under:-(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (36 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] "In going over the files, I have observed that instead of examining whether any new fact of factual inconsistency was raised in the Review Petition which was not addressed earlier in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, reliance was more placed on the plea of the delinquent police official. In many instances I also observed that the manner of noting and explanation of technical facts stated in the comments were as if written by the delinquent police official concerned rather than the Group officials who have little idea of police functioning and procedures at field level."
24. The prosecution sanction has also been approved and issued by the same person on whose letter / complaint the case has been registered in a very hasty manner which is clear from the facts that the DOP on 03.07.2020 after putting their note forwarded the matter to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, who thereafter on the very same day forwarded the same to the Chief Secretary for approval.
On the very same day i.e. on 03.07.2020 the Chief Secretary, Rajasthan, Mr. Rajeeva Swarup accorded the approval for prosecution sanction. It is pertinent to observe here that on the very same day i.e. on 03.07.2020 Mr. Rajeeva Swarup assumed the charge of the Chief Secretary and on the very same day when a person assumes the charge of the Chief Secretary, it can be said that he may have many assignments (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (37 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] other than the regular office works, he approved the prosecution sanction. In such circumstances, issuing the prosecution sanction in such a busy schedule on that particular date speaks of the fact that he has not applied his mind and various material aspects, as observed above, has not been taken care of while approving the prosecution sanction.
25. This Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.1220/2025) decided on 03.03.2025 has observed as under:-
"16. It is an obligatory duty of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority that on receiving the material from the Investigating Officer for issuance of prosecution sanction, he has to consider it and undertake extensive scrutiny and thereafter pass an order ascertaining whether the prosecution sanction is to be issued or not.
17. The basic object behind seeking prosecution sanction prior to taking cognizance against a public servant/government servant is that as regards the functioning of the department or office, no other department shall unnecessarily interfere in the day to day functioning of the department concerned and also to ensure that the public servant is not unnecessarily harassed by any other department or agency since it is only the concerned department where the public servant is employed, of whose basic procedures of functioning the Sanctioning (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (38 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Authority is aware of. So as to ensure that there may not be unwarranted interference of any other department in the internal functioning of a department, the provision as regards the prosecution sanction has been inserted and therefore it was for the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority to consider the material placed before it by the Investigating Officer and to examine that and pass appropriate order after making due application of its mind."
26. The observation and view of the Court is supported by various Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are as under:-
A. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & one other connected matter (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 13, 14, 15 and 16 has observed as under:-
"13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (39 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.
15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (40 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind. (Vide Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. R. [(1947-48) 75 IA 30: (1948) 61 LW 257: AIR 1948 PC 82]; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 124: 1958 Cri LJ 265], Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. [(1979) 4 SCC 172: 1979 SCC (Cri) 926], State v. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani [(1996) 4 SCC 472: 1996 SCC (Cri) 755], State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti [(2009) 17 SCC 92: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 949], Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State [(2011) 6 SCC 1: (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 782] and State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain [(2013) 8 SCC 119: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 515: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 85].)
16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:
16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (41 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
B. State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 9 and 10 has observed as under:-
"9. We agree that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not.
10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (42 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police, Karnataka Lokayukta had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as (sic to) the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced."
C. Harish Chandra Bunkar Balai Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors., (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.707/2023), decided on 18.10.2024, wherein the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, has observed in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under:-
"10. A bare perusal of the above draft prosecution (as placed on record of the present appeal along with additional affidavit) and the order dated 28th January 2015 makes it clear that the order granting prosecution sanction is a verbatim repetition of the draft prosecution as furnished by the ACB to the Collector, Banswara.(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (43 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
11. The order dated 28th January 2015 does not reflect any ground on the basis of which it can be concluded that the sanctioning authority applied his independent mind before granting the prosecution sanction. In Babu Lal Vishnoi's case (supra), a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon Subhash Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.590 of 2010, wherein it was observed as under:
"The authority competent to remove a public servant from service is clothed with the power to grant sanction for prosecution to such public servant by the Legislature with [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] a definite intention as that authority being having administrative and disciplinary control on the person concerned is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation on basis of intimate knowledge of the work and conduct and also having day to day knowledge of overall administrative interest of the department.
The sanction for prosecution represent a deliberate decision and that requires objective satisfaction of the competent authority about a prima facie case against the person facing accusation. The authority competent while granting sanction is also required to record reasons for launching prosecution and is further required to specify its need in public interest. This important duty can be discharged only on independent application of mind to all the relevant facts on basis of which prosecution is proposed.
If any extraneous pressure is mounted on the authority competent then there shall be all chances of frivolous and malicious prosecution. To maintain the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (44 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] spirit of the provisions for the grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant, the authority competent is required to act independently, objectively and with an intention for not saving a culprit from prosecution but at the same time with a view to afford a reasonable protection to a public servant from unnecessary harassment and undue hardship through vexatious prosecution.
Keeping in mind, the above mentioned intention of the Legislature, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (supra) authoritatively held that the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. For the same reason, this Court too in the case of Kishan Lal (supra) held that the statutory power given to the authority competent is required to be exercised by the authority concerned and not by any body else."
12. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012, it was held as under :
"As already stated, in the instant matter too the sanction granted and the draft to grant sanction are ad verbatim same. The Director, Mines and Geology appears to have [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absolute authority to grant sanction for prosecution to the competent authority, as such, the competent authority is required to apply its own mind by considering all relevant facts. The competent authority may avail (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (45 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] assistance of other persons, but in no case, any other authority can initiate the process of consideration for grant of sanction and instruct the competent authority for granting sanction. In the case in hand, the consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of fact, was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution. The Anti Corruption Bureau could have communicated all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document. The prosecution sanction granted in the instant matter by the Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur under the letter dated 18.10.2012 on face depicts non- application of mind and abdication of the powers by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore, is illegal."
13. Applying the ratio of the above judgments to the present case, we hold that the proposed draft document for grant of prosecution sanction furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the sanctioning authority cannot be upheld in terms of Manish Mathur and is therefore declared illegal."
D. Vijay Kumar Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.5351/2023) decided on 07.10.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:-
"It is an admitted position that for procuring the drug license and cancellation of drug license, online procedure was prevailing at that time because department had started online process from September, 2017. Complainant very well (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (46 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] knew the online process. He had applied for cancellation of drug license online. So, there was no need to prepare the file offline. Investigating Authorities had not conducted the verification of illegal demand in accordance with law and had not conducted any enquiry as to whether any work was pending with the petitioner or not. It is also an admitted position that at the time of trap proceedings, no work was pending with the petitioner from 17.12.2018 to 19.12.2018. Complainant first time applied for the drug license on 24.12.2018. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the concerned authorities. Concerned authorities also admitted the fact that no work was pending with the petitioner. Petitioner had clearly stated that complainant had forcefully put the tainted money in his pocket on account of rivalry of the petitioner with Ranjeet Gurjar. Department had also admitted the rivalry of the petitioner with [2024:RJ- JP:41711] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-5351/2023] Ranjeet Gurjar. Ranjeet Gurjar is the friend of the complainant Kuldeep Singh. In the present case, prosecution failed to establish that there was any demand and acceptance of the bribe. Mere recovery of tainted money does not attract the offence against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act of 1988 because prosecution had to establish the fact that work was pending with the petitioner and petitioner had demanded the tainted money for doing work. Competent authority before granting the prosecution sanction had not applied independent mind. So, I deem it fit to quash and set aside the order of the prosecution sanction dated 23.06.2021 issued against the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (A-3), Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur."
27. The third issue raised is that no permission under section 17A of the amendment Act, 2018 for enquiry or (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (47 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] inquiry or investigation of offence relatable to the recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, was taken from the Competent Authority and if same has not been taken that would be the effect of the same on the criminal proceedings.
28. Section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018 provides for enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offence relatable to the recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. Section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018 reads as under:-
"17-A. Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.
-- No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval--
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (48 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month."
29. Present case is the case where the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home wrote a letter dated 04.02.2019 to the ACB that the personnels of the Home Department Group-II in collusion with and on receiving the illegal gratification from the delinquent police personnels whose review petitions filed under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules are pending for adjudication, have made recommendations (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (49 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] favouring them. It is also alleged in the said letter that on looking to the comments and recommendations it seems that they are being written by the delinquent police personnels themselves and not by the employees of the Department of Home. In the said letter it has also been stated that as many as 32 files have been traced out where there are favourable recommendations to the Police Personnels and are signed by the then Joint Secretary, Home, Miss Seema Singh.
30. The beginning words of section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018 says that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the concerned authorities as mentioned in the said section. In the present case, from the bare contents of the complaint/ letter dated 04.02.2019 and the conclusion of the charge-sheet clearly speaks that the case has been registered against the petitioner and the charge-sheet has been submitted for the allegations of making illegal recommendations/ comments favouring the delinquent police personnels in collusion with them. The facts clearly speak that the alleged offences are relatable to the recommendations /comments made by the Personnels of the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (50 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Home Department Group-II but there is nothing on the record that before registering the case and making investigation any such permission was sought. Now this Court has to see that if the criminal proceedings have been initiated and the charge-sheet has been filed as regards the offences relatable to the recommendations / comments alleged to have been made by the petitioner who is a public servant without seeking any previous approval from the concerned authority for such investigation.
31. The language of section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018 mandates that the prior approval is a must for commencing investigation into the offences relatable to any recommendation. If no such previous approval is sought as mandated under section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018 then the whole proceedings shall stand vitiated. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC 338, the relevant paragraphs of the same are quoted as under:-
"117. In terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (51 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation. It is in this context apposite to notice that the complaint, which has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, moved before the first respondent CBI, is done after Section 17-A was inserted. The complaint is dated 4-10-2018. Para 5 sets out the relief which is sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR under various provisions. Paras 6 and 7 of the complaint are relevant in the context of Section 17- A, which read as follows:
"6. We are also aware that recently, Section 17-A of the Act has been brought in by way of an amendment to introduce the requirement of prior permission of the Government for investigation or inquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7. We are also aware that this will place you in the peculiar situation, of having to ask the accused himself, for permission to investigate a case against him. We realise that your hands are tied in this matter, but we request you to at least take the first step, of seeking permission of the Government under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating this offence and under which, "the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (52 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month".
(emphasis supplied)
118. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the complaint fully knowing that Section 17-A constituted a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation unless there was previous approval. In fact, a request is made to at least take the first step of seeking permission under Section 17-A of the 2018 Act. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 was filed on 24-10-2018 and the complaint is based on non-registration of the FIR. There is no challenge to Section 17-A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Section 17-A continues to be on the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners themselves, in the complaint, request to seek approval in terms of Section 17-A but when it comes to the relief sought in the writ petition, there was no relief claimed in this behalf."
Following the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Yashwant Sinha judgement, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Ranidan Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (2024:RJ-JD:41050), has opined on similar lines, the relevant paragraphs have been provided hereinunder:
"25. Therefore, before initiating investigation against petitioners under the provisions of the P.C. Act, prior approval of the Government was a sine- qua-non and the F.I.R. could not have been (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (53 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] registered without such approval. As the petitioners cannot be prosecuted in the matter without prior approval of the Government, therefore, registration of the FIR by the Anti- Corruption Bureau against the petitioners is totally illegal and amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.
27. Instant matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha (supra) and the decision of this Court in the case of Himanshu Yadav (supra), on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance. Facts of the present case are clearly similar to those in the above-referred cases.
28. The principle put forward by the respondents in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) is not found to be of any assistance to them, as in that case public servant Naresh Meena, was caught on the spot red-handed, while accepting gratification. As discussed earlier, prior approval is not required in cases of on-the- spot arrest matters under the P.C. Act, for which there is a clear exception in Section 17A of the Act. The main question in the case of CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (supra) was whether the petitioner was entitled [2024:RJ-JD:41050] (13 of 13) [CRLMP-
1219/2022] to benefit of anticipatory bail in an offence under the P.C. Act. No observation was made in that judgment regarding the principle enunciated by the three-judge bench in Yashwant Sinha's (supra) case. In fact, that principle was neither referred to nor discussed.The principle propounded by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Devender Kumar (supra) predates the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yashwant (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (54 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Sinha's case. In the context of the present dispute, the principle established in Yashwant Sinha's case is fully applicable, as Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clarified the position regarding the matter at hand.
29. As such, lodging of FIR against the petitioners without the approval of the competent authority is void ab initio. According to this Court, investigations is proscribed sans prior approval of the competent authority. Therefore, provision of section 17A of the Act of 1988 would create a road block in the way of the investigating officer to proceed further."
32. The another issue raised is whether there is any sufficient material or evidence available on the record so as to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences of making recommendations/ comments in conspiracy with the delinquent police personnels so as to favour them in disposal of the review petitions in their favour.
33. In the complaint/ letter dated 04.02.2019 itself the then Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, who lateron granted prosecution sanction against the petitioner being the Chief Secretary of the Rajasthan has stated that the recommendations are signed by the then Joint Secretary, Department of Home named Miss Seema Singh and the allegations against the accused petitioner are that he had played a pivotal role in making such recommendations/ comments. There is nothing on the record that any of the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (55 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] alleged recommendations/ comments are signed by the accused petitioner. As per the Administrative procedure of department all such recommendations are signed and forwarded by the Joint Secretary. The other staff of the Department is only for the assistance of the Joint Secretary. The Joint Secretary, Department of Home is the final Signing Authority to approve the recommendations/ comments which are alleged to be made in collusion with the delinquent police personnels to favour them. The order of the prosecution sanction dated 6.10.2020 also speaks that the proposals submitted on record for decision were signed by the Joint Secretary and the accused petitioner is said to have been found involved in an indirect manner. The observations made in the prosecution sanction order are as under:-
"Ikzdj.k esa vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] x`g ds v-"kk- i= fnukad 04-02-2019 ds vuqlkj ik;k x;k fd ,lhlh] x`g foHkkx }kjk rRdkyhu lacaf/kr] la;qDr "kklu lfpo o vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks vius d{k esa cqykdj nks'kh v/khuLFk iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk izLrqr iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij rF;ksa ls foijhr fVIi.kh fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dqN izdj.kksa dk mnkgj.k nsdj ,slh vuisf{kr fVIi.kh ugha fd;s tkus dh fgnk;r nh xbZ ijUrq mlds ckotwn Hkh dqy 32 i=kofy;ksa esa ls 20 i=kofy;ksa esa iwoZ esa fn;s x;s n.M dks de djrs gq, ekSf[kd psrkouh fn;s tkus gsrq fVIi.kh vafdr dh xbZA izdj.k esa leLr nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.k izkIr gksus ij lacaf/kr (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (56 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] fyfid }kjk i=koyh ij izLrqr fd;k tkrk FkkA izdj.kksa esa leLr rF;ksa dk voyksdu ,oa lexz ijh{k.k djus ds i"pkr~ lacaf/kr la;qDr "kklu lfpo }kjk fu.kZ;kRed fVIi.kh@izLrko fof"k'B "kklu lfpo] x`g ds ek/;e ls ,lh,l] x`g dks vuqeksnukFkZ ,oa vuqeksnu i"pkr~ lfpo] jkT;iky egksn; dks vxzsf'kr fd;s tkrs FksA i=koyh ij izLrqr fu.kZ;kFkZ izLrko la;qDr "kklu lfpo }kjk gLrk{kfjr gS ftlesa vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dh dksbZ izR;{k Hkwfedk izrhr ugha gksrh gS fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo }kjk ,lhch dks nkSjkus vuqla/kku ntZ djk;s c;ku esa iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa vihy vf/kdkj }kjk fn;s x;s n.Mkns"k dks de djus vFkok ;Fkkor j[kus gsrq vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks funsZf"kr dj uksV rS;kj djkus dk dFku fd;k gSA bl izdkj iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa la;qDr "kklu lfpo dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s tkus okys fu.kZ;kRed izLrko rS;kj djus esa vkjksih vf/kdkjh dh vizR;{k ,oa lafdz; Hkwfedk jgh gSA lkFk gh iquZfopkj izdj.kksa esa lacaf/kr vkjksih iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh ls ckj&ckj nwjHkk'k@OgkV~lvi ij laidZ dj vius izdj.k ds laca/k esa ppkZ dh tk jgh Fkh ftlls Hkh Li'V gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa fu.kZ;kRed izLrko rS;kj fd;s tkus esa vkjksih dh vizR;{k ijarq egRoiw.kZ lafdz; Hkwfedk FkhA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij fu.kZ;kRed [email protected] izLrqr fd;s tkus dk nkf;Ro rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo dk gh Fkk fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo } kjk mDr dk;Z vizR;{k :i ls vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh Jh jkds"k dqekj eh.kk ls djok;k tkrk Fkk ftlls rRdkyhu la;qDr "kklu lfpo dh jktdk;Z esa ykijokgh rS;kj (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (57 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] fd;s x;s izLrkoksa ij vkilh lgefr ,oa feyhHkxr dh laHkkouk ls Hkh bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fj"or ekax ds laca/k esa vkjksih ds eksckby ls gqbZ okrkZvksa dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV ds vuqlkj vkjksih dks laHkor;k ,lhch dk;Zokgh dk iwoZ vans"kk gks x;k Fkk ftlds dkj.k lacaf/kr ;kfpdkdrkZvksa o vU; ls og eksckbZy ij ysu&nsu dh ckrsa u dj f}vFkhZ ckrsa gh djrk Fkk vkSj dk;Z ds laca/k esa feydj ckr djus rFkk dk;Z djokus dk vk"oklu nsrk FkkA vkjksih }kjk dk;Z dh ,sot esa fj"or jkf"k dh ekax QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls Li'V ugha gS fdarq vuqfpr ikfjrks'k.k ds :i esa jsM okbZu] ,lh vkfn dh ekax fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA"
34. The said observations in the prosecution order also speaks that the alleged transcript of the conversion also, does not disclose the fact of demand of gratification. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that even though there is a conclusion of the investigation and the observations of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority that the alleged recommendations/ comments were signed by the then Joint Secretary, Department of Home named Miss Seema Singh but she has not been made an accused. Once the prime Officer who signs the recommendations and comments has not been made as an accused then criminal proceedings against assisting staff who has not even signed the said comments in opinion of the Court is wholly unjustified and arbitrary and (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (58 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] such proceedings against the assisting staff deserve to be quashed and set aside.
35. As per the investigation report, nothing incriminating material or documents have been seized from the house of the accused petitioner during the search, which could connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences.
36. The another issue which has been raised is that putting the mobile phone of the accused petitioner on observation is violative of the provisions of law i.e. section 5(2) of the Act of 1885 and the rules made thereunder, which is quoted as under:-
"5. Power for Government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of messages.--(1) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, take temporary possession (for so long as the public emergency exists or the interest of the public safety requires the taking of such action) of any telegraph established, maintained or worked by any person licensed und er this Act.
(2) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (59 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of messages to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order:
Provided that press messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their transmission has been prohibited under this sub- section."
37. The Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction in the case of Vinit Kumar (supra) has observed in paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 39 and 40 as under:-
"16. We are of the view that as per Section 5(2) of the Act, an order for interception can be issued on either the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of the public safety. The impugned three interception orders were issued allegedly for the reason of 'public safety'. As held in PUCL (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (60 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] (supra), unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the said section. The expression "Public Safety" as held in PUCL (supra) means the state or condition of freedom from danger or risk for the people at large. When either of two conditions are not in existence, it was impermissible to take resort to telephone tapping.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in PUCL case (supra) has observed that neither the occurrence of public emergency nor the interest of public safety are secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to the reasonable person.
18. Even at this stage, from the affidavits filed by the Respondents or the charge-sheet, the Respondents could not justify any ingredients of risk to the people at large or interest of the public safety, for having taken resort to the telephonic tapping by invading the right to privacy. Neither from the wp-2367 of 19(J).doc impugned orders nor from the record any situation showing interest of public safety is borne out.
19. We are satisfied that in peculiar fact of the instant case, the impugned three interception orders neither have sanction of law nor issued for legitimate aim, as sought to be suggested. The impugned three interception orders could not satisfy the test of "Principles of proportionality and legitimacy" as laid down by the nine judges' constitution bench decision in K. T. Puttaswamy (supra).(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (61 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that all three impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the same.
39. We may also add here that if the directions of the Apex Court in PUCL'case (supra) which are now re-enforced and approved by the Apex Court in K. T. Puttaswamy (supra) as also the mandatory rules in regard to the illegally intercepted messages pursuant to an order having no sanction of law, are permitted to be flouted, we may be breeding contempt for law, that too in matters involving infraction of fundamental right of privacy under Article 21 the Constitution of India. To declare that dehorse the fundamental rights, in the administration of criminal law, the ends would justify the means would amount to declaring the Government authorities may violate any directions of the wp-2367 of 19(J).doc Supreme Court or mandatory statutory rules in order to secure evidence against the citizens. It would lead to manifest arbitrariness and would promote the scant regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of the citizens, and law laid down by the Apex Court.
40. We, therefore, quash and set aside three interception orders dated 29th October, 2009, 18th December, 2009 and 24th February, 2010 and consequently direct the destruction of copies of intercepted messages/ recordings. The intercepted messages/ recordings stand eschewed from the consideration of trial Court. The Petitioner is at liberty to adopt the remedy available in law for the other reliefs sought in the writ petition." (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (62 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
38. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 2754 of 2006) decided on 11.12.2006 has also considered this issue in the light of various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and observed in paras 11, 21, 34 and 35 as under:-
"11. It would be relevant to extract the following excerpts from the above decision of the Supreme Court with regard to exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act.
"Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of messages in accordance with the provisions of the said section. Occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety are the sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act. Unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the said section. Public emergency would mean the prevailing of a sudden condition or state of affairs affecting the people at large calling for immediate action. The expression public safety means the state or condition of freedom from danger or risk for the people at large. When either of these two conditions are not in existence, the Central Government or a State Government or the authorised officer cannot resort to telephone- tapping even though there is satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India etc. In other words, even if the Central Government is satisfied (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (63 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security of the State or friendly relations with sovereign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, it cannot intercept the messages or resort to telephone-tapping unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety or the existence of the interest of public safety requires. Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor the interest of public safety are secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person.
The first step under Section 5(2) of the Act, therefore, is the occurrence of any public emergency or the existence of a public safety interest. Thereafter the competent authority under Section 5(2) of the Act is empowered to pass an order of interception after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. When any of the five situations mentioned above to the satisfaction of the competent authority require then the said authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording reasons in writing for doing so."
21. As held by the Supreme Court in People's Union For Civil Liberties'S case AIR 1997 Supreme Court 568 (supra) the competent authority under Section 5(2) of the Act is empowered to pass an order of (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (64 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] interception only on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety which are held to be sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act.
34. As noted above, Section 5(2) of the Act is aimed at preventing indiscriminate telephone- tapping so as to protect the right to privacy of a person and the object of enacting Rule 419-A of the Rules is to rule out arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court in People's Union For Civil Liberties's case AIR 1997 Supreme Court 568 (supra) while expressing displeasure as to the inaction on the part of the Central Government in making Rules prescribing the procedure to be followed for interception of messages under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act laid down certain procedural safeguards which have been adopted in toto while inserting Rule 419- A of the Rules.
35. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the said Rules as declared in People's Union For Civil Liberties's case AIR 1997 Supreme Court 568 (supra) and particularly since the violation of the said provisions would result in infraction of right to privacy of an individual which is a part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that Rule 419-A though procedural in nature is mandatory and the non- compliance of the same would vitiate the entire proceedings."
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (65 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
39. The provisions of the Act of 1985 and the judgements, referred to above, clearly speak that the mobile number of a person can be put on observation only when the authority feels that there is likelihood of affect to the public safety. The Director General of ACB, Rajasthan, vide letter dated 05.02.2019 written to the Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, required to grant permission and ordered for transferring of voice, video, GPRS and data calls of the petitioner's mobile number for a period of sixty days from the date of beginning of interception under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act of 1885 in the interest of the public safety. The Addl. Chief Secretary Home, Mr. Rajeeva Swarup at whose instance the case has been registered without looking to this fact that there is no danger to the public safety by the accused petitioner, has granted the permission vide order dated 05.02.2019 as prayed by the ACB for a period of sixty days, however, that period was lateron extended from time to time for a total period of 201 days. No approval as required under the Rules has been sought.
40. The allegations and the reasons for seeking permission to intercept the mobile number of the accused petitioner in no manner is danger to the public safety. There is nothing on the record that how the public safety would be effected or was being effected by the accused petitioner. In (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (66 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] view of the fact of lacking any such evidence which could led to the fact that any action of the accused petitioner would have been danger to the public safety. Then in such circumstances, granting permission for interception of the mobile of the accused petitioner, in no manner can be said to be justified and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
41. In such circumstances, in the case of Vinit Kumar (supra), the High Court of Bombay has set aside the order of interception and consequently directed for destruction of copies of intercepted messages/ recordings and the same were ordered to stand eschewed from the consideration of the trial court.
42. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the observations made in the case of Vinit Kumar (supra) and Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree (supra), this Court also deems just and proper to set aside the order dated 05.02.2019 and the subsequent orders as regards keeping the mobile number of the accused petitioner under observation and the recordings and the messages and also directs destruction of copies of intercepted messages/ recordings and the same stand eschewed from consideration for any purpose.
43. As regards the allegation of offence under section 354 IPC, the court has gone through the affidavits of Smt. Rajbala, Pramila Kumari, Smt. Mamta Sharma and Smt. Pooja (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (67 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] Kanwar, which are placed on record. Considering the contents of the aforesaid affidavits, the Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient material to prosecute the accused petitioner for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC.
44. In view of the discussion made above, the criminal misc. Petition No. 6395/2022 and so also the Criminal Writ Petition No.22/2022 filed by the accused petitioner, are allowed as under:-
A. The impugned prosecution sanction order dated 06.10.2020 (Annex.2 in the criminal writ petition No.22/2022) is quashed and set aside with all consequential effects.
B. The Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction also set asides the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary Home as regards putting the mobile number of the accused petitioner under observation for a period of sixty days and further orders for extending of the said period and consequently direct destruction of copies of intercepted messages/ recordings and the said intercepted messages / recordings stand eschewed from consideration against the accused petitioner.
C. The criminal proceedings of FIR No. 252/2019 registered on 22.08.2019 at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, ACB, District ACB Jaipur are quashed and set aside along-with further all consequential proceedings including the (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (68 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] criminal proceedings in the form of Sessions Case No. 27/2021 (CIS No.39/2021) pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, ACD No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II.
45. In view of the order passed in the main petitions, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J NK Sharma/Dy. Registrar (Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)