1 2025:CGHC:2388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 152 of 2025 1 - Uchit Sharma S/o S. Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o 31/240 J.D. Bajpai Building Civil Lines, Near Central Bank, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Station House Officer The State Economic Offenses Investigation Bureau, In Front Of Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 01.11.2023 passed in unregistered Criminal complaint by the learned Special Judge 2 (P.C. Act), 1st Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), whereby the private complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed holding that since no sanction for prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is obtained. 2. Brief facts of the case is that petitioner has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against certain government officers for their unlawful and corrupt practices adopted in relation to converting the seats reserved for former soldiers and giving appointments to the underserving candidates to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer, before the learned Special Court at Raipur. As per the complaint filed before the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) it is stated that the Directorate Agricultural Department Raipur had issued advertisement dated 02.03.2017 for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer, whereby 650 posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment. Out of these 650 posts 63 posts were reserved for former soldiers and it is further alleged that by adopting illegal method and corrupt practices not a single post was filled up by the former soldiers and the reserved posts were filled up through different classes which was reserved for a special category candidates. It is further alleged that the reserved posts cannot be converted or filled up by the candidates of a different class and for converting the same the prior permission from the General Administration Department is necessary whereas in the present case the officers responsible for converting the reserved posts have not obtained any prior permission from the state government and by adopting the corrupt practices they have given appointment to the undeserving candidates who are not eligible to be appointed against the reserved category hence it was prayed that an F.I.R. be registered and the matter should be investigated by the State Investigating Agency. In the earlier round of litigation the Special Court at 3 Raipur had dismissed the complaint for want of proper sanction relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Aiyappa reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicious mind resulting failure of justice. The learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) Raipur has failed to consider the legal presumption of law against the corrupt officers who are responsible for converting the reserved category posts into non reserved category and giving appointments to the undeserving candidates as a consequence of which the persons who are culprit of committing corruption will remained unpunished for their act of felony. Hence the order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside remanding the matter back to the lower court for proper and complete adjudication. He further contended that the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) at Raipur had lost sight that in the matter of Subramanian Swami Vs. Manmohan Singh and another it was held that if the competent authority do not take decision on a proposal for grant of sanction within period of 3 months then a private complaint or the prosecutrix agency will proceed to file the complaint /charge sheet to commence prosecution. Hence a private complaint in the matter of Corruption Act is maintainable, where no decision is taken within a stipulated time limit. The sanctioned will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution. In the present case when the complaint was filed after making an application for grant of sanction no decision was intimated and later the complainant /applicant was intimated that his application has already been rejected in that case where the application has been rejected and sanction was not granted then also a private complainant has no remedy but to file a private complaint. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no 4 pre-prosecution approval, therefore, the concerned Special Judge has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of record shows that the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge (P.C. Act)/ 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) has rejected the complaint of the present petitioner stating that since Sanction u/s 19(1) of the PC Act is not on record, therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to order enquiry u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Again, on 01.11.2023, the Special Judge (P.C. Act)/ 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) has rejected the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. stating that as per the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, the application for pre- prosecution approval has been dismissed. Therefore, it is clear that at present there is a lack of pre-prosecution approval in relation to the complaint filed by the petitioner. 7. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge (P.C. Act)/ 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.). 8. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to file appropriate legal recourse before appropriate forum. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima