Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiya Lal vs State on 14 May, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 158 / 2018
Kanhaiya Lal S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste
Rajpurohit, R/o Vill.- Udainagar, Bawadi Kalla, P.S. Phalodi, Tehsil
Baap, Dist.- Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 10/05/2018 By the instant revision petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., petitioner-complainant has challenged order dated 13th of October, 2017 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by the order impugned, has declined to send the complaint of petitioner for investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. in absence of sanction for prosecution of the accused under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The facts, in brief, are that petitioner-complainant submitted a criminal complaint before learned trial Court against the accused attributing offence under Section 10, 12, 13 & 15 of the P.C. Act read with Section 341, 323, 161, 167, 171(d) and 120-B IPC. Essentially, the complaint was against the police authorities.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-158/2018] After examining the complaint, the learned trial Court declined to send the same for investigation by citing the reason that there is no proper sanction for prosecution of the accused, who are public servants. While passing the impugned order, learned trial Court has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(2016) 9 SCC 598], which has followed the dictum in case of Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. [(2013) 10 SCC 705].
Provisions of Section 19 of the P.C. Act envisage prior sanction for prosecution of a public servant vis-a-vis offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 & 15 of the P.C. Act. The Section starts with non-abstante clause that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 & 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the prevision sanction. The word 'cognizance' is not defined in the Cr.P.C. but it ordinarily means that concerned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that there is a case to be enquired into. The requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act is a safeguard to the public servants against frivolous or inexpedient prosecution. Thus, the Legislature in its wisdom has provided a reasonable protection to public servants in discharge of their official functions so that they may continue to perform their duties and obligations undeterred by vexatious and unnecessary prosecution. While it is true that Supreme Court in a later judgment, in case of Manju Surana Vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. [2018 (3 of 3) [CRLR-158/2018] (5) SCALE 75], has found some distinction between sanction for prosecution and process under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and referred the matter to Larger Bench but merely because of referring the matter to a Larger Bench it is not possible to infer that the law laid down by two earlier judgments are not holding the field. Reliance in this behalf can be placed on a decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saju P. Paul & Anr. [(2013) 2 SCC 41].
Supreme Court in Manju Surana's case (supra)made following observations:
"No doubt the process Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only one of investigation. The larger question, of whether any such direction can be issued without prior sanction has been referred to a larger bench. Were the Appellant to succeed and were the matter to go back to the Magistrate and the Magistrate after application of mind forms an opinion to direct investigation by the police, it would be always open to the Magistrate to include the name of Respondent No.1 if such material is found against him."
In view thereof, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
Consequently, the revision petition fails and same is hereby rejected.
(P.K. LOHRA)J.