Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Touching on the touchstone of the above ratio, this Court is to conclude whether order dated 17.09.2016 has been passed after application of independent mind. To arrive at a conclusion, consideration of the draft prosecution document and the order granting sanction would be relevant. For ready reference, the reproduction of both the documents would be profitable:

[2025:RJ-JD:23161] (4 of 10) [CW-13005/2016] "&çk:i vfHk;kstu Loh--fr& esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd Jh jkds'k dqekj lksuh fnukad 10-02- 1993 dks iVokjh ds in ij fu;qDr gksdj fnukad 7-01-2002 dks iVokjh] iVokj gYdk Mkcyk pkank rg- 'kkgiqjk ftyk HkhyokM+k ds in ij inLFkkfir FkkA esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd vkjksfi;k Jherh cjek nsoh eh.kk iRuh Jh dkyw jke eh.kk us o"kZ 2000 ls 2005 rd xzke iapk;r Mkcyk pkank esa ljiap ds in ij jgrs gq, vius ifr Jh dkyw jke iq= fd'ku eh.kk fuoklh xzke cyk.M iapk;r Mkcyk pkank dks fnukd 7-01-2002 dks xzke cyk.M esa 30 xq.kk 45 QhV dk fuEu iM+ksSl of.kZr iV~Vk tkjh fd;k & iwoZ esa Jhfd'ku iq= uank] if'pe esa lM+d] mÙkj esa f'kojkt firk Jhfd'ku eh.kk] nf{k.k esa iM+r n'kkZrs gq, of.kZr Hkw[kaM ij 40 o"kksaZ ls fuokl djuk crkrs gq, fu'kqYd iV~Vk tkjh dj fn;k] tcfd Jh dkyw jke fu'kqYd i‌V~Vk çkIr djus dh ik=rk ugha j[krk FkkA mDr iV~‌Vk'kqnk Hkwfe fcykuke ljdkj vkjkth ua- 411 jdck 0-45 gSDVs;j xSj eqefdu dqbZ ls lEcfU/kr {ks= esa vkrh gSA bl çdkj ljdkjh tehu ij vfrØe.k dj vk/kkjghu rkSj vius in dk nq#i;ksx dj vius ifr Jh dkyw jke dks i‌V~Vk tkjh fd;kA rglhynkj 'kkgiqjk }kjk Hkh iVokjh dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mDr vkjkth la- 411 jdck 0-45 gSDVs;j fdLe catM+ gksuk vafdr fd;k gSA bl çdkj xzke iapk;r Mkcyk dh ljiap Jherh cjek nsoh eh.kk us lfpo Jh jktsUæ çlkn oS".ko o iVokjh Jh jkds'k dqekj lksuh ls feyhHkxr ,oa in dk nq#i;ksx dj ljiap ifr Jh dkyw jke eh.kk dks /kkjk 32 ¼17½ dh vogsyuk dj ljiap] lfpo o iVokjh us vkilh feyhHkxr dj dkyw yky eh.kk dks fu;e fo#) i‌V~Vk tkjh dj ykHk igqapk;k o ljdkj dks gkfu igqapkuk vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;kA esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd vkjksfi;k Jherh cjek nsoh eh.kk iRuh Jh dkyw jke eh.kk us o"kZ 2000 ls 2005 rd xzke iapk;r Mkcyk pkank esa ljiap ds in ij jgrs gq, llqj Jh fd'ku eh.kk iq= uank eh.kk fuoklh xzke cyk.M iapk;r Mkcyk pkank dks fnukad 7-01-2002 dks xzke cyk.M esa 120 xq.kk 40@38 QhV dk fuEu iM+kSsl of.kZr i‌V~Vk tkjh fd;k & iwoZ esa vke jkLrk] if'pe esa dkyw iq= Jhfd'ku eh.kk] mÙkj esa NksVw iq= jke/ku] nf{k.k esa yknw iq= xaxkjke n'kkZrs gq, of.kZr Hkw[kaM ij 40 o"kksaZ ls fuokl djuk crkrs gq, fu'kqYd i‌V~Vk tkjh dj fn;k] tcfd Jh Jhfd'ku eh.kk fu'kqYd i‌V~Vk çkIr djus dh ik=rk ugha j[krk FkkA rglhynkj 'kkgiqjk }kjk Hkh iVokjh dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mDr vkjkth la- 411 jdck 0-45 gSDVs;j fdLe catM+ gksuk vafdr fd;k gSA bl çdkj xzke iapk;r Mkcyk dh ljiap Jherh cjek nsoh eh.kk us lfpo Jh jktsUæ çlkn oS".ko o iVokjh Jh jkds'k dqekj lksuh ls feyhHkxr ,oa in dk nqq#i;ksx dj ljiap ds llqj Jhfd'ku eh.kk dks /kkjk 32 ¼17½ dh vogsyuk dj ljiap] lfpo o iVokjh us vkilh feyhHkxr dj Jhfd'ku [2025:RJ-JD:23161] (5 of 10) [CW-13005/2016] eh.kk dks fu;e fo#) i‌V~Vk tkjh dj ykHk igq¡pk;k o ljdkj dks gkfu igqapkuk vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;kA esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd vkjksfi;k Jherh cjek nsoh eh.kk iRuh Jh dkyw jke eh.kk us o"kZ 2000 ls 2005 rd xzke iapk;r Mkcyk pkank esa ljiap ds in ij jgrs gq, nsoj Jh f'kojkt iq= Jhfd'ku eh.kk fuoklh xzke cyk.M iapk;r Mkcyk pkank dks fnukad 7-01-2002 dks xzke cyk.M esa 30 xq.kk 45 QhV dk fuEu iM+ksl of.kZr iV~‌Vk tkjh fd;k & iwoZ esa NksVw iq= jke/ku 'kekZ] if'pe esa Mkcyk pkank lM+d ls 50 QhV nwjh ij] mÙkj esa jkLrk] nf{k.k esa dkyw jke iq= Jhfd'ku eh.kk dk çLrkfor Hkw[kaM n'kkZrs gq, of.kZr Hkw[kaM ij 40 o"kksaZ ls fuokl djuk crkrs gq, fu'kqYd i‌V~Vk tkjh dj fn;k] tcfd Jh f'kojkt fu'kqYd iV~V‌ k çkIr djus dh ik=rk ugha j[krk FkkA rglhynkj 'kkgiqjk }kjk Hkh iVokjh dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mDr vkjkth la- 411 jdck 0-45 gSDVs;j fdLe catM+ gksuk vafdr fd;k gSA bl çdkj xzke iapk;r Mkcyk dh ljiap Jherh cjek nsoh eh.kk us lfpo Jh jktsUæ çlkn oS".ko o iVokjh Jh jkds'k dqekj lksuh ls feyhHkxr ,oa in dk nq:i;ksx dj ljiap ds nsoj Jh f'kojkt eh.kk dks /kkjk 32 ¼17½ dh vogsyuk dj ljiap] lfpo o iVokjh us vkilh feyhHkxr dj Jh f'kojkt eh.kk dks fu;e fo:) i‌V~Vk tkjh dj ykHk igq¡pk;k o ljdkj dks gkfu igq¡pkuk tqeZ /kkjk 13¼1½¼lh½¼Mh½] 13¼2½ ihlh ,DV 1988 o 120Ckh Hkk-n-l-

[2025:RJ-JD:23161] (9 of 10) [CW-13005/2016]

9. A bare perusal of both the above documents clearly reveals that there has been no objective satisfaction of the competent authority about a prima facie case against the petitioner. The order granting sanction is on the face of it, a verbatim repetition of the draft document.

10. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012 (decided on 19.12.2012), the Single Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar situation wherein the prosecution sanction was a verbatim repetition of the draft prosecution as furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau, observed and 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 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 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 [2025:RJ-JD:23161] (10 of 10) [CW-13005/2016] 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."

11. Taking into consideration the similar facts of the present case and applying the ratio of the above judgment to the present case, this Court is of the clear opinion that the proposed draft document for grant of prosecution sanction furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the sanctioning authority cannot be upheld and the same deserves to be declared illegal.