[2025:RJ-JP:7931] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3162/2021 Naresh Chand Meena S/o (Late) Sh. Bharosi Lal Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Milak Saray Tehsil Nadauti Distt. Karauli (Raj) (Constable No. 1393, P.S Jawahar Nagar Distt. Shri Ganganagar) Presently Residing At Quarter No. 329, Police Line Shri Ganganagar (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, alongwith Ms. Shreya Hatila & Mr.Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA ORDER Reserved on ::: February 14, 2025 Pronounced on ::: February 28, 2025 1. The accused petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition u/S 482 CrPC with the prayer to summon the entire relevant record and after perusal of the same, the order dated 19.12.2020 whereby the prosecution sanction has been accorded by the Superintendent of Police, Shri Ganganagar against him in relation to FIR No. 245/2020 dated 27.10.2020 registered at Police Station CPS, Jaipur, District ACB, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (2 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] (Amended) Act, 2018 (for short ‘the amendment Act of 2018’ read with Section 120-B IPC, may be quashed and set aside and further all the consequential proceedings in furtherance thereof including the order of cognizance dated 04.01.2021 passed by Court of learned Special Judge, Court of Session, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 1, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 1/2021, State Vs. Naresh Chand Meena, may be quashed and set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant Hardeep Singh submitted a typed report before the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur, which is reproduced as follows:- "उपर्युकक्त व विषर क के स संब संध म पं प्रा्रारप्रार्थी हरथी हरद्थी हरदीपहरदीपसस संह प्त्र पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री त्र श्री स वि० पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री उतक्तमहरदीपसस संह जं प्राातक्त हरदीपससख उम्र 53 सं प्राल प केशं प्रा वर विसं प्रार ातय नि विं प्रासह पुत्र श्री 126 लं प्राल क विं प्रारयुर गगोव विनथी हरद य निगर कं प्राय निप्र ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा गगोव विनथी हरद य निगर ज जलं प्रा कं प्राय निप्र सथी हरदर रूपह पुत्र श्री कं प्रा अ जयु रह हहै कक म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के प विय नि क् मं प्रार अरगोडं प्रा प्त्र त्र श्री स वि० पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री रं प्रामशरण जं प्राातक्त हरदीपससख उम्र 39 सं प्राल ातय नि विं प्रासह पुत्र श्री ल केबर कॉलगोय निह पुत्र श्री गगोव विनथी हरद य निगर कं प्राय निप्र वि म केर्थी हरदी पं प्रारयुय निहरदीपसशप म पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री ग्र क्त केगबहं प्राथी हरद्र फं प्रामं प्रायु य निं प्राम क की थी हरद्कं प्राय नि शॉप य नि० 5- 59/115 A य निं प्राचघर प्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा कल केकररग सं ज-09 बबरहय निं प्रा रगोड कं प्राय निप्र उतक्तर पथी हरद केश म हहै। म केरं प्रा भक्तह पुत्र श्री जं प्रा पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री प विय नि क् मं प्रार अरगोोडं प्रा फं प्रामं प्रायु पर व विक्रर कं प्रा कं प्राम थी हरद केखक्त के हहै क्त्रारं प्रा मै ज केय निररक थी हरद विं प्राईरगो कगो कर करय नि के कं प्रा कं प्राम थी हरद केखक्तं प्रा हू सं। दथी हरदय निं प्रा संक 18.09.2020 कगो म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के क की थी हरद्कं प्राय नि पर थी हरदगो वर जकक्त आए ज जनहगोय नि के म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो बक्तं प्रारं प्रा कक हम ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ज विं प्राहर य निगर ग संगं प्राय निगर रं प्रा जत्र श्री स्रारं प्राय नि स के आए हहै उय निम के स के एक य नि के अपय निं प्रा य निं प्राम य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि थी हरदूसर के य नि के अपय निं प्रा य निं प्राम सगोहय निलं प्राल ए एस आई बक्तं प्रारं प्रा। उनहगोय नि के म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो बक्तं प्रारं प्रा कक आपस के थी हरद विं प्राईरगो क के स संब संध म क् छ [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (3 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] जं प्राय निकं प्रार्थी हरदी चं प्रादहए और वि के थी हरदगोय निगो म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो हॉरल गगय नि पलं प्रा जं प्रा म ल के गए विहं प्राहाँ स के उनहन्होंय नि के म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के स के म्मुझ के फगोय नि कर विं प्रारं प्रा कक आपस के थी हरद विं प्राईरगो क के स संब संध म क् छ जं प्राय निकं प्रार्थी हरदी चं प्रादहए आप रहं प्राहाँ पर क्त्र संक्त आए य निह्थी हरदी सं क्तगो आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो ग संगं प्राय निगर ल के जं प्रार केग के ज जस पर मै हॉरल गगय नि पलं प्रा जं प्रा पह्हाँचं प्रा क्तगो य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि सगोहय निलं प्राल ए एस आई म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के क के सं प्रा्रार हरदीपसमल के। उनहन्होंय नि के म्मुझस के कहं प्रा कक TRIO SR जगो नरूर केक कमपय निह पुत्र श्री क की थी हरद विं प्राई हहै कक खर्थी हरदीथी हरद ब केचय नि के क की सूचय निं प्रा हम उपलबध करं प्राओ कफर य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो थी हरद्कं प्राय नि पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री ग्र क्त केगबहं प्राथी हरद्र फं प्रामं प्रायु ल के गरं प्रा और म्मुझ के सगोहय निलं प्राल ए एस आई य नि के हॉरल पर ह्थी हरदी रगोक दथी हरदरं प्रा ्रारगोडह पुत्र श्री थी हरद केर बं प्राथी हरद म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के य नि के म्मुझ के फगोय नि ककरं प्रा कक मैय नि के इय निकगो थी हरद विं प्राईरगो क के स संब संध म सूचय निं प्रा थी हरद के थी हरद्थी हरदी हहै। ककनक्त् य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा इय नि सूचय निं प्रा स के स संक्त्ष्र य निह्थी हरदी हहै। म्मुझ के य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के हॉरल गल केकसह पुत्र श्री पलं प्रा जं प्रा मं प्राल रगोोड कं प्राय निप्र ल के जं प्रा रहं प्रा हहै। इस पर पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री सगोहय निलं प्राल ए.एस.आई य नि के म्मुझ के भह पुत्र श्री हगोरल गहैल केकसह पुत्र श्री म ल के गरं प्रा। विहं प्रा सं पर जं प्राकर मैय नि के य निगोदरस क के समबनध म पूछं प्रा क्तगो उनहन्होंय नि के सूचय निं प्रा क के समबनध म य निगोदरस दथी हरदखं प्राय नि के स के मय निं प्रा कर दथी हरदरं प्रा और कहं प्रा कक हम इय नि सूचय निं प्राओ स के सनक्त्ष्र य निह्थी हरदी सं हहै। मै आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के कगो प्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ग संगं प्राय निगर रं प्रा जत्र श्री स्रारं प्राय नि ल के जं प्राकर पूछक्तं प्राछ कर ग के। मैय नि के य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि सगोहय निलं प्राल स के कं प्राफ की हं प्रा्रारं प्रा जगोोडह पुत्र श्री कर सूचय निं प्रा क के समबनध म य निगोदरस दथी हरदखं प्राय नि के कं प्रा कं प्राफ की ातय नि वि केथी हरदय नि ककरं प्रा क्तगो पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के थी हरदगो पातक्तरन्हों म य निगोदरस ातय निकं प्रालं प्रा और एक य निगोदरस हम दथी हरदखं प्रारं प्रा उस य निगोदरस क के य निह पुत्र श्रीच के पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री रं प्रा ज केश क् मं प्रार प्हरदीपसलस इ संत्र श्री सप केकरर क के हत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर ककरं प्रा ह्आ ्रारं प्रा उस पर म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री प विय नि क के हत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर कर विं प्राकर य निगोदरस अपय नि के पं प्रास ह्थी हरदी रख हरदीपसलरं प्रा। य निगोदरस क की थी हरदूसर्थी हरदी पातक्त हम य निह्थी हरदी सं थी हरद्थी हरदी हगोरल म थी हरद केर रं प्राक्त क्तक हम पक्तं प्रााडोडक्त करक्त के रह के कं प्राफ की समर प पशचं प्राक्त पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के म्मुझ के कहं प्रा कक आप 15 लं प्राख रूपर के थी हरद केओग के क्तगो हम आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री प विय नि क् मं प्रार कगो छगोोड थी हरद ग के, म केर्थी हरदी सह पुत्र श्रीआई सं प्राहब और ाडडपर्थी हरदी सं प्राहब स के बं प्राक्त हगो गरह पुत्र श्री हहै, 15 लं प्राख म स के 2.50 लं प्राख म केर के, 2.50 लं प्राख सगोहय निलं प्राल ए एस आई क के. 10 लं प्राख सह पुत्र श्रीआई सं प्राहब और ाडडपर्थी हरदी सं प्राहब कगो थी हरद केय नि के पोड ग के। इसपर मैय नि के कहं प्रा कक म केर के ब बचच के क की जमयुय निह पुत्र श्री म पढं प्राई क की फ कीस क के पहैस के पोड के हहै मै आपकगो अभह पुत्र श्री लं प्राकर थी हरद के थी हरदू संगं प्रा। इस थी हरदररं प्राय नि य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा म केर के सं प्रा्रार हगोरल स के म केर के घर पर सं प्रा्रार चलं प्रा और म केर के स के 15 लं प्राख रूपर के हरदीपसलर के। मै और य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा विं प्रापस सगोहय निलं प्राल [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (4 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] क के पं प्रास आर के क्तगो म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के य नि के थी हरद विं प्राईरन्हों स के समब जनधक्त सूचय निं प्रा उपलबध कर विं प्रा थी हरद्थी हरदी। इसक के बं प्राथी हरद 15 लं प्राख रर पश विक्त क के रूपर के वि भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के द विं प्रारं प्रा थी हरद्थी हरदी गई सूचय निं प्रा ल केकर य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि सगोहय निलं प्राल विहं प्रा सं स के चल के गर के। इसक के बं प्राथी हरद दथी हरदय निं प्रा संक 25.09.20 कगो थी हरद्बं प्रारं प्रा य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा म केर के पं प्रास म केर के घर कं प्राय निप्र आरं प्रा और कहं प्रा कक आपक के द विं प्रारं प्रा थी हरद्थी हरदी गई सूचय निं प्राओ स के ाडडपर्थी हरदी सं प्राहब सनक्त्ष्र य निह्थी हरदी सं ह्ए, आपक के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री प विय नि क् मं प्रार कगो ज विं प्राहर य निगर ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा, पुत्र शह पुत्र श्रीग संगं प्राय निगर ल के जं प्राय निं प्रा ह्थी हरदी पोड केगं प्रा। आपकगो अपय नि के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज के प विय नि क् मं प्रार कगो बचं प्राय निं प्रा हहै क्तगो 25 लं प्राख ओर रूपर के क की वर वित्र श्री स्रारं प्रा कर विं प्रा थी हरदगो। इस पर मैय नि के कहं प्रा अभह पुत्र श्री इक्तय निह पुत्र श्री रं प्राहरदीपसश म केर के पं प्रास य निह्थी हरदी सं हहै मैय नि के कं प्राफ की हं प्रा्रारं प्रा जगोडह पुत्र श्री वि व विय निम्र ातय नि वि केथी हरदय नि ककरं प्रा क्तगो य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के कहं प्रा कक आप अभह पुत्र श्री म्मुझ के 1 लं प्राख रूपर के थी हरद केथी हरदगो क्तगो मै आपकगो 25 लं प्राख रूपर के करय नि के क के हरदीपसलए 15.10.20 क्तक कं प्रा समर दथी हरदल विं प्रा थी हरदू संगं प्रा। इस पर मैय नि के य निर केश क् मं प्रार क के कह के अय नि्सं प्रार प विय नि क् मं प्रार क के गगरफक्तं प्रार्थी हरदी क के डर स के 1 लं प्राख रूपर के और रर पश विक्त रं प्राहरदीपसश य निर केश क् मं प्रार कगो उसह पुत्र श्री समर घर म स के लं प्राकर थी हरद के थी हरद्थी हरदी और य निगोदरस कं प्रा ातय नि वि केथी हरदय नि ककरं प्रा क्तगो उसय नि के म्मुझ के य निगोदरस क्रमं प्रा संक 4236 दथी हरदय निं प्रा संक 13.09.20 जगो रं प्रा ज केश क् मं प्रार प्हरदीपसलस इ संत्र श्री सप केकरर प्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ज विं प्राहर य निगर पुत्र शह पुत्र श्रीग संगं प्राय निगर क के हत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर क की ह्ई क की फगोरगो पातक्त थी हरद्थी हरदी जगो म आपकगो ररपगोरयु क के सं प्रा्रार अपय नि के हत्र श्री सक्तं प्राक्षर करक के थी हरद के रहं प्रा हू सं। इस पकं प्रार पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा य नि के 25 लं प्राख ओर रर पश विक्त रं प्राहरदीपसश क के हरदीपसलए 15. 10.20 क्तक कं प्रा समर थी हरद के दथी हरदरं प्रा। मै पुत्र शह पुत्र श्री य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि ्रारं प्राय नि के क के अगधकं प्रारररन्हों कगो ओर 25 लं प्राख रूपर के रर पश विक्त क के य निह्थी हरदी सं थी हरद केय निं प्रा चं प्राहक्तं प्रा हू सं। इसहरदीपसलए मै आ ज आपक की शरण म आरं प्रा हू सं म्मुझ के नरं प्रार दथी हरदल विं प्राय नि के क की क पं प्रा करं प्रा वि । म केर्थी हरदी वि म केर के भक्तह पुत्र श्री ज प विय नि क् मं प्रार क की य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि उय निक के अगधकं प्रारररन्हों स के कगोई प्रं प्राय निह पुत्र श्री र सं ज जश य निह्थी हरदी सं हहै और य नि ह्थी हरदी कगोई पू वियु कं प्रा ल केय नि-थी हरद केय नि बकं प्रारं प्रा हहै. मै य निर केश मह पुत्र श्रीणं प्रा वि प्हरदीपसलस ्रारं प्राय निं प्रा ज विं प्राहरय निगर ग संगं प्राय निगर क के त्र श्री सरॉफ क के बह पुत्र श्रीच पहल के कगोई जं प्राय नि-पहचं प्राय नि य निह्थी हरदी सं हहै। मै इय निकगो रर पश विक्त क के 25 लं प्राख रूपर के और य निह्थी हरदी सं थी हरद केय निं प्रा चं प्राहक्तं प्रा हू सं। उस के रर पश विक्त ल केक्त के र संग के हं प्रा्रारन्हों पकड विं प्राय निं प्रा चं प्राहक्तं प्रा हू सं। म केर्थी हरदी ररपगोरयु पर उगचक्त कं प्राय निूय निह पुत्र श्री कं प्रारयु विं प्राह्थी हरदी कर विं प्राय नि के क की क पं प्रा करं प्रा वि ।" Thereafter, the trap proceedings were conducted on 26.10.2020. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (5 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 3. On the basis of aforesaid typed report and the trap proceedings, an FIR No. 245/2020 was registered at Police Station CPS, Jaipur, District ACB, Jodhpur for offences u/S 7 of amendment Act of 2018 read-with Section 120-B IPC. 4. Counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that on the basis of aforesaid typed report, the ACB started investigation. He further submitted that it is alleged that on 22.10.2020, the accused petitioner met with the complainant at Delhi and accepted Rs.2,000/- cash for providing further extension of time to arrange the bribe money. Thereafter, the ACB team conducted a trap proceeding on 26.10.2020 during which the petitioner is alleged to have accepted Rs.10 lacs cash from the complainant as a bribe and the bribe money was recovered from the custody of the complainant and not from the accused petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submitted that apart from this, neither any amount was given by the complainant nor accepted by the petitioner as a bribe and at the same time, co-accused-Rajesh Kumar Sihag- Police Inspector who is also alleged to have made a demand of bribe, has been given a clean chit by A.C.B. despite that in N.D.P.S. Act related case, the investigation can be made by an officer not below the rank of Police Inspector. As such, no case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (6 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] made out, even prima facie and the entire allegations against the petitioner are groundless and without any legal basis. 6. Counsel further submitted that the Investigating Officer of Anti Corruption Bureau submitted a letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar seeking prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner along-with a format of prosecution sanction enclosed therewith. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the S.P., Sri Ganganagar, without having regard to the provisions of law and material available on the record and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the accused petitioner, accorded the prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner in a mechanical and stereo typed manner without application of mind by merely filling in the blanks in the format of prosecution sanction as submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau and getting it retyped by adding a line that the case was also discussed with the Investigating Officer. Counsel further submitted that a perusal of the format of prosecution sanction provided by the Anti Corruption Bureau and the impugned prosecution sanction would reveal that both are verbatim same except the name, post and department of the sanctioning authority. In the facts of the present case, the entire action of the sanctioning authority is, [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (7 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] thus, contrary to the spirit of law and the prosecution sanction accorded by him is vitiated on account of non application of mind. 8. Counsel further submitted that after obtaining the prosecution sanction and completing the investigation in a cursory and superficial manner, the A.C.B. submitted the charge-sheet in the matter against the accused petitioner for offences u/s 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 read-with Section 120B I.P.C. in the Court of learned Special Judge, Court of Session, Prevention of Corruption, No. 1, Jaipur along-with the prosecution sanction while keeping the investigation pending u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. against Rajesh Sihag and Sohan Lal. 9. Counsel further submitted that upon submission of the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner considering the prosecution sanction for offences u/s 7 P.C. of the amendment Act of 2018 read-with Section 120-B I.P.C vide order dated 04.01.2021. 10. Counsel also submitted that the prosecution sanction dated 19.12.2020 is patently illegal, unjust and improper, therefore, no consequential proceedings including the cognizance order dated 04.01.2021 in furtherance thereof can be allowed to sustain. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (8 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 11. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and submitted that the prosecution sanctioning authority after examining the entire relevant material which was made available by the Investigating Agency which he collected during the course of investigation, accorded prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner. Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court in this matter. 12. Considered the submissions advanced by counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and minutely and meticulously examined the complete material which was made available to the Court. 13. The first and foremost submission of the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner is that the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar who issued the prosecution sanction as against the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2020 is ad-verbatim of the Draft sent by the ACB, Jodhpur and there is no due application of mind of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority. In this regard, on extensive scrutiny of the material available on record, the Court finds that during trap proceedings before registration of the case, the ACB observed as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (9 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] bl izdkj vc rd dh xbZ mijksDr dk;Zokgh ,oa ekSds ij rS;kj dh xbZ QnkZr ls vkjksih Jh ujs'k pan eh.kk dkfu- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj o Jh jkts'k dqekj fl;kx fujh{kd iqfyl] Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj us ,d jk; gksdj vkilh feyh&Hkxr dj "kM~;U= jpdj ifjoknh Jh gjnhiflag o mlds Hkrhts Jh iou dqekj vjksMk ds uke ukp?kj fcjguk jksM dkuiqj mRrj izns'k esa Jh xq: rsxcgknqj QkekZ uked nqdku gSA iqfyl Fkkuk lnj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj esa ntZ ,Mhih,l ,DV ds eqdnek ua- 224@20 ftldh tkap Jh jkts'k dqekj fl;kx Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj }kjk dh tk jgh gS] ifjoknh dh QeZ dh dksbZ Hkwfedk Li"V ugha gksus ds ckotwn ifjoknh dh QeZ Jh xq: rsxcgknqj QkekZ ds fo#) 91 lhvkjihlh dk uksfVl tkjh dj vuqla/kku ds uke ij Mjk /kedkdj ifjoknh gjnhiflag ls Vªsi dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ 1602000 :- ysuk rFkk Vªsi dk;Zokgh nkSjku ifjoknh ls 10 yk[k :i;s vkjksih ujs'k pUn eh.kk us vius fy, o Jh jkts'k dqekj fujh{kd iqfyl Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj Jhxaxkuxj ds fy, crkSj fj'or jkf'k ysuk c[kwch izekf.kr ik;k x;kA vr% vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn eh.kk iq= Hkjkslh yky eh.kk mez 34 o"kZ fuoklh xzke feyd ljk; rglhy uknkSrh ftyk djkSyh gky fuoklh DokVZj ua- 329 iqfyl ykbZu Jhxaxkuxj gky dkfuLVscy ua- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj us Jh jkts'k dqekj fl;kx fuoklh lksuklj ftyk >qa>uq gky fujh{kd iqfyl] Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj dk mDr d`R; tqeZ vUrxZr /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e&2018 o 120ch Hkk-na-la- esa n.Muh; gksus ls buds fo:) fcuk uEcjh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ okLrs dzekadu izsf"kr gSA 14. The aforesaid conclusion clearly speaks that the petitioner has been found to be involved in a criminal act in conspiracy with co-accused Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Inspector of Police, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar who was the Investigating Officer of the concerned criminal case. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (10 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 15. After completion of the investigation the ACB recorded its conclusion as under:- laiw.kZ vuqla/kku ls vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn eh.kk iq= Hkjkslh yky eh.kk mez 34 o"kZ fuoklh xzke feyd ljk; rglhy uknkSrh ftyk djkSyh gky fuoklh DokVZj ua- 329 iqfyl ykbZu Jhxaxkuxj gky dkfuLVscy ua- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj ds fo:) tqeZ /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 o 120 ch Hkk-n-l- dk vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ik;k x;k gSA izdj.k gktk dh iz0lw0fj0 esa of.kZr vkjksih Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl] Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ls Vªsi dk;Zokgh fo:) Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu0 1393 ds nkSjku fnukad 26- 10-2020 dks nkSjkus fj'or jkf'k ysu&nsu ds oDr Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu0 1393 dks Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl dks Hksts x;s okV~l,i eSlst ^^lj 15 dh ckr dj ds 10 ns jgk gS] vkSj vkxs ds fy, vkSj dqN ls euk dj jgk gS D;k d:** dks ns[kus ds ckn dkfu- o Fkkukf/kdkjh nksuks ds chp gqbZ okV~l,i okW;l okrkZ ds vuqlkj vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 }kjk Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl dk dkuiqj okyh ikVhZ ds t;iqj esa vkus o u[kjs uq[kjs djus dh ckr dgus ij Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu0 dks okil Fkkus vkus dk dguk o dkuiqj okyh ikVhZ ¼ifjoknh½ dks Qzh djus dh ckr dgus ds lk{; ds laca/k esa r¶rh'k 'ks"k gSaA Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-iq- fnukad 17-09-2020 dks vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 ds lkFk dkuiqj x;k Fkk] ml oDr dkuiqj esa gksVy fxfrdk xSysDlh esa ifjoknh gjnhiflag us vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- dks 15 yk[k :i;s dh fj'or nsuk vius izLrqr ifjokn o vius dFkuksa esa crk;k gSaA ftl laca/k esa l-m-fu-iq- ls r¶rh'k 'ks"k gSaA Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-iq- iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj dks vuqla/kku gsrq ryc fd;k x;k] ijUrq gSaA Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m--fu-iq- vuqla/kku gsrq mifLFkr ugha vk;s gSA izdj.k dk vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 dk tekur vkosnu ekuuh; fof'k"B U;k;ky;] Hk-fu-vf/kfu;e dz&1 egkuxj t;iqj }kjk [kkfjt fd;k tkus ls vfHk;qDr orZeku easa [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (11 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] dsUnzh; dkjkx`g t;iqj esa U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksus o izdj.k esa fnukad 23-12-2020 dks bZYrck gksus ds dkj.k Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 ds fo:) vkjksi i= ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSaA Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m- fu-iq- iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ls vuqla/kku visf{kr gksus ds dkj.k Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-iq- ds fo:) vuqla/kku /kkjk 173¼8½ tk-QkS- esa iSf.Max j[kk x;k gSaA Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ftyk iqfyl v/kh{kd] ftyk Jhxaxkuxj ls muds i=kad va&24¼ ½ xaxk@vi@vfHk-@2020@1678 fnukad 19-12-2020 ds }kjk izkIr gqbZ gSaA vr% pktZ'khV la[;k---233-----@ 2020 fnukad 21-12-2020 fo:) Jh ujs'kpUn eh.kk iq= Hkjkslh yky eh.kk mez 34 o"kZ fuoklh xzke feyd ljk; rglhy uknkSrh ftyk djkSyh gky fuoklh DokVZj ua- 329 iqfyl ykbZu Jhxaxkuxj gky dkfuLVscy ua- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj ds fo:) tqeZ /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 o 120 ch Hkk-n-l- esa cgSfl;r izHkkjh vf/kdkjh] Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjksa&,l-;w- tks/kiqj jkT; ljdkj dh foKIrh la[;k F.14/1/4/HA/57 fnukad 15-07-1957 esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa Jheku fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] ls'ku U;k;ky;] Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] dze&1 t;iqj egkuxj dh lsok esa izsf"kr dj fuosnu gSa fd vfHk;qDr ds fo:) dkuwuh lywd QjekosaA 16. On the basis of the said conclusion of the ACB the Draft Prosecution Sanction was sent by the Dy. Director General of Police, ACB, Jodhpur, along-with the letter dated 17.12.2020 (Annex.2 to the petition) to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, who is Competent Authority to issue the prosecution sanction as regards the petitioner who was posted as a Constable. The Prosecution Sanctioning Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar issued the prosecution sanction against the petitioner on [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (12 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 19.12.2020 (Annex.3 to the petition). On perusal of the Draft of the prosecution sanction as well as the order of prosecution sanction, the Court finds substance in the submission of the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner that the order of the prosecution sanction is ad- verbatim to same that of the Draft of the prosecution sanction forwarded to the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority by the ACB. It is found that even the incorrect dates as regards the trap proceedings i.e. 17.09.2020 as mentioned in the Draft has been copied in the prosecution sanction order, which goes to show that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority has not even cared to correct the mistake and the allegations of the counsel for the accused petitioner is that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority had not applied his mind, holds substance. The Prosecution Sanctioning Authority has copied the Draft of the prosecution sanction and has ordered to issue the prosecution sanction vide impugned order dated 19.12.2020 observing that the ACB has found the allegations proved against the petitioner. It has also been mentioned that he has discussed with the Investigating Officer as regards the evidence collected by him during the course of investigation but nothing has been mentioned that what are those evidence which persuaded him to issue the prosecution sanction against the petitioner and how the petitioner was connected with the investigation of the case in [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (13 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] regard to which there is allegation of demand of bribe. Whether the petitioner was in position to help the complainant? 17. The basic object of seeking the prosecution sanction to prosecute a public servant is to avoid unnecessary interference in the internal functioning of a department by some other agency. It is the concerned Administrative Department (i.e. Police Department in this case) which knows whether an employee / Officer working there is competent in any manner in the matter to help or cause harm to the complainant. The Prosecution Sanctioning Authority has not even cared to give due consideration to the fact that no work or proceedings were pending before the petitioner who is posted as a Constable for which he could make a demand. The accused petitioner has also been implicated as an accused with the aid of provisions of section 120B IPC. It is surprising to note that the person i.e. the Inspector of Police- Rajesh Kumar Sihag who was assigned the investigation of a matter related to Narcotic Drugs, which is said to be the cause of demand, has been given a clean chit and in such situation the charge-sheet has been filed only against the petitioner, whereas to prosecute a person for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC there must be two or more accused. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (14 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 18. As regards the requirement of application of mind of the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority at the time of issuance of prosecution sanction, following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and Coordinate Bench of this Court, are being taken into consideration:- A. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & one other connected matter, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295, 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (15 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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 order suffers [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (16 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (17 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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 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. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (18 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (19 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (20 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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 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, [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (21 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (22 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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 deaprtment had started online process from September, 2017. Complainant very well 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (23 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (24 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is only a Constable and was not assigned any investigation of the case where he could help or cause harm to the complainant. 20. The another submission made by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner is that the entire case reflected from the charge-sheet is that the accused petitioner was acting with conspiracy with co-accused Rajesh Kumar Sihag, CI and Sohanlal, ASI. 21. The police while submitting the charge-sheet against the petitioner, kept the investigation pending under section 173(8) CrPC as regards the involvement of Rajesh Kumar Sihag, CI and Sohanlal, ASI, as has been quoted in the foregoing para. 22. After completion of the investigation as regards co- accused Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Inspector of Police, the matter was sent for prosecution sanction against him. The Director General of Police after taking into consideration the evidence collected during investigation issued the prosecution sanction vide order dated 31.12.2021 to prosecute Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Inspector of Police for the offence punishable under section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 and section 120B IPC. In the prosecution sanction order dated 31.12.2021 as regards Rajesh Kumar Sihag, C.I., the Prosecution [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (25 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] Sanctioning Authority i.e. the Director General of Police has observed as under:- esjs /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd vkjksih Jh jkts'k dqekj flgkx iqfyl fujh{kd }kjk tfj;s uksfVl /kkjk 91 tk-QkS- ifjoknh gjnhi flag ds Hkrhts dh QeZ xq: rst cgknqj QkekZ] dkuiqj ls tCr dh xbZ nokbZ VscysV VªksekMksy gkbZMªks DyksjkbZV 100 ,e-th- dh lIykbZ ds laca/k esa miyC/k djokbZ xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij ifjoknh gjnhi flag ds Hkrhts dh QeZ xq: rst cgknqj QkekZ] dkuiqj ds fo:) dksbZ vijk/k cuuk ugha ik;k tkus ds dkj.k gh mlus vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn dkfu- dks gjnhi flag ds ikl ,oa mlds Hkrhts dh QeZ ij fj'or jkf'k ysus gsrq fHktokus dh laHkkoujk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA D;ksafd mDr izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr Vªsi dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku fnukad 26-10- 2020 dks vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn eh.kk dkfu- 1393 iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj }kjk Vªsi vf/kdkjh dks iwNus ij ;g rF; crkuk fd ^^lj xyrh gks xbZ] eSa vHkh vkids lkeus ifjoknh ls fj'or jkf'k ysus ds laca/k esa Jh jkts'k dqekj lh-vkbZ- lkgc ds OgkVl,si uEcj 9928852907 ij vius OgkVl,si ua- 8302328700 ls fgUnh esa pSfVax dj voxr djok ldrk gw¡A** vkfn rF; Vªsi vf/kdkjh dks :c: ekSrfcjku ,oa ifjoknh Jh gjnhi flag ds le{k crkus ij Vªsi vf/kdkjh }kjk le; 8-13 ih-,e- ij vkjksih Jh ujs'k pUn dkfu- ds eksckbZy Qksu ds Lihdj dks vkWu djokdj OgkVl,si eksckby ua- 9887519770 ls vkjksih Jh jkts'k dqekj flgkx iqfyl fujh{kd ds OgkVl,si eksckbZy ua- 9928852907 ij okrkZyki djokbZ xbZ] rc mä nksuksa ds e/; fuEukuqlkj okrkZyki gksuk QnZ VªkalfLØIV esa vafdr rF;ksa ls ik;k x;k gSA vr% eSa ,e-,y- ykBj] egkfuns'kd iqfyl] jktLFkku] tks mDr Jh jkts'k dqekj flgkx iq= Jh jkedqekj flag fuoklh flgkxks dh <k.kh rglhy o ftyk >qU>quw gky fuoklh v'kksd uxj] lksuklj rglhy eylhlj] iqfyl Fkkuk lnj >qU>quw ftyk >qU>quw gky iqfyl fujh{kd rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj fuyafcr eq[;ky; iqfyl ykbZu] dksVk 'kgj dk fu;ksDrk izkf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k mlds fo:) vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr tkjh djus [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (26 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] esa l{ke gw¡A vuqla/kku ds nkSjku /kkjk 161 lh-vkj-ih-lh ds vUrxZr fy;s x;s c;kuksa] ,df=r leLr lk{;ksa ,oa bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds iw.kZ ,oa lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu ,oa euu djus rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj foe'kZ djus ds mijkUr Jh jkts'k dqekj flgkx] iqfyl fujh{kd }kjk vkjksfir vijk/;k djuk ik;s tkus ij Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 19 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa Jh jkts'k dqekj flgkx] iqfyl fujh{kd] rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk tokgj uxj] ftyk Jh xaxkuxj] gky fuyafcr eq[;ky; iqfyl ykbZu] dksVk 'kgj ds fo:) /kkjk 7 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la'kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 ,oa /kkjk 120ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa rFkk mijksDr rF; ij fof/k ds vU; micU/kksa ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k ds fy;s ekuuh; fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] lS'ku U;k;ky; Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] Ø- l- 01 t;iqj vFkok fdlh vU; l{ke U;k;ky; esa vfHk;ksx pykus gsrq vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr ,rn~ }kjk iznku djrk gw¡A 23. After issuance of the prosecution sanction against Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector, the ACB vide order dated 03.11.2022 issued by the Office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Churu, closed the investigation pending under section 173(8) CrPC as regards the involvement of Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector and Sohanlal, Sub Inspector Police and also observed that the charge-sheet filed against the accused petitioner be treated as a complete charge-sheet. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.11.2022 is quoted as under:- lEiw.kZ vuqla/kku ls Li"V gS fd vkjksih Jh ujs'kpUn dkfu- }kjk iz- lw-la- 224@2020 Fkkuk lnj Jhxaxkuxj dh vuqla/kku i=koyh ls dsl [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (27 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] Mk;jh dk pksjh Nqis voyksdu dj fy;k] ftlls bls laKku esa vk x;k fd dkuiqj okyh dEiuh ds ekfyd dks eqfYte ugha ekuk x;k blfy, mlus vius Lrj ij gh dkuiqj okyh ikVhZ ls okrkZ ;k ckrphr dj voS/k :i ls jkf'k izkIr dh xbZ gSA Jh ujs'kpUn dkfu- fnukad 22-10-2020 dks dkuiqj vkSj fnYyh x;k] ml nkSjku fnukad 21-10-2022 ls 04 fnu vkdfLed vodk'k esa x;k gqvk FkkA vodk'k ds nkSjku Hkh dkuiqj ;k fnYyh ls Jh jkts'k dqekj fujh{kd iqfyl ls fdlh Hkh ek/;e eksckbZy] yS.MykbZu ;k vU; fdlh Hkh rjhds ls dksbZ ckr Jh ujs'kpUn dkfu- ls ugha gqbZ FkhA Jh ujs'kpUn dkfu- us tks Hkh voS/k d`R; fd;k mlesa Jh jkts'k dqekj fujh{kd iqfyl lafyIrrk ugha ikbZ xbZ gS] ;g d`R; mldh [kqn dh gh dk;Zokgh jgh gSA bl izdkj leLr vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k gS fd dkfu ujs'k pUn eh.kk iwoZ esa tkjh fd;s x;s uksfVl dh izfr djokdj vodk'k ysdj vius Lrj ij gh ifjoknh gjnhi flag ls fj'or izkIr djus gsrq x;k gS rFkk lhvkbZ o fMIVh dk uke ysdj ifjoknh gjnhi flag ls fj'or jkf'k izkIr dh gS] blesa Jh ujs'k pUn dkfu ds fdlh mPpkf/kdkjh dh Hkwfedk ugha ik;h xbZ gSA izdj.k esa 'ks"k rFkkdfFkr vkjksihx.k Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m-fu-ds vijk/k esa lafyIr gksus ckcr vuqla/kku ls dksbZ Bksl lk{; ugha vkus ds dkj.k Jh jkts'k flgkx fujh{kd iqfyl o Jh lksguyky l-m-fu- iqfyl Fkkuk tokgu uxj ds fo:) /kkjk 173¼8½ tk-QkS- esa iSf.Max vuqla/kku dks can fd;k x;k gSaA vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa iwoZ esa is'k dh xbZ pktZ'khV dks iw.kZ pktZ'khV ekuh tkosA fjiksVZ voyksdukFkZ Jheku dh lsokesa is'k gSaA 24. It is very surprising to note that even after seeking prosecution sanction against Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector, who was the Investigating Officer in the case against the complainant, has been given a clean chit. After closing of the case against Rajesh Kumar Sihar, Police Inspector and against Sohanlal, Assistant Sub Inspector, now the criminal case is being proceeded only against the present accused petitioner for the offence under section 7 of the [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (28 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] amendment Act of 2018 and section 120B IPC. Initially, a charge-sheet after seeking prosecution sanction was filed against the petitioner observing that ‘he in conspiracy with other co-accused has demanded and accepted the money from the complainant’. The accused petitioner is a Constable who is only to assist the Senior Officer/s in making the investigation in a criminal case. The investigation of the criminal case registered under the NDPS Act against the family members of the complainant party, was assigned to Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector because no investigation under the NDPS matters can be conducted by an Officer below the rank of Inspector, meaning-thereby the accused petitioner has no authority to make any kind of investigation in the NDPS matters. The investigation was assigned to Rajesh Kumar Sihag, Police Inspector. In such a situation the prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner under section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 is not sustainable and further since the clean chit has been given by the ACB to the Police Inspector Rajesh Kumar Sihag and the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Sohanlal, only the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC, as for prosecuting a person for the offence under section 120B IPC, the accused must be two or more. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (29 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 234, has observed in paras 39, 40, 41 and 42 as under:- “39. Section 120-B IPC is the provision which provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Definition of “criminal conspiracy” given in Section 120-A reads as follows: “120-A. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.” 40. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be : (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (30 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime is designated to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. (See American Jurisprudence, Vol. II, Section 23, p. 559.) For an offence punishable under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (31 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means. 41. No doubt, in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means, an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. 42. In Halsbury's Laws of England (vide 4th Edn., Vol. 11, p. 44, para 58), the English law as to conspiracy has been stated thus: “58. Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law, the punishment for which is imprisonment or fine or both in the discretion of the court. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (32 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration or however, it may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication with every other.” 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Balla alias Farhat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & one other connected matter, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1019 has observed in para 8 as under:- “8. As regards the conviction of accused no. 5 - Balla @ Farhat under Section 120-B of IPC is concerned, we find that the High Court has set aside the conviction of all six other accused persons under Section 120B and accused no. 5 - Balla @ Farhat is the only accused who has been [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (33 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] convicted for the offence under Section 120-B. The ground on which he was convicted was that he was the only person who knew about the availability of huge amounts of money in the Truck. Section 120-A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy. An agreement by two or three persons is required to constitute a criminal conspiracy. There cannot be a conspiracy by only one accused, and it is necessary for the applicability of Section 120-B of the IPC that there must be two or more persons agreeing for the purpose of the conspiracy. This proposition of law finds support in a decision of a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Topandas v. The State of Bombay. Therefore, the conviction of accused no. 5 - Balla @ Farhat for the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC cannot be sustained.” 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Topandas vs. State of Bombay, reported in 1955 SC OnLine SC 33 has observed in paras 6 to 13 as under:- “6. Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code:“When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy”. By the terms of the definition itself there ought to be two or more persons who must be parties to such an agreement and it is trite to say that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (34 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself. If, therefore, 4 named individuals were charged with having committed the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and if three out of these 4 were acquitted of the charge, the remaining accused, who was the Accused 1 in the case before us, could never be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy. 7. If authority for the above proposition were needed, it is to be found in Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 33rd Edn., p. 201, para 361:— “Where several prisoners are included in the same indictment, the jury may find one guilty and acquit the others, and vice versa. But if several are indicted for a riot, and the jury acquit all but two, they must acquit those two also, unless it is charged in the indictment, and proved, that they committed the riot together with some other person not tried upon that indictment. 2 Hawk. c. 47. s. 8. And, if upon an indictment for a conspiracy, the jury acquit all the prisoners but one, they must acquit that one also, unless it is charged in the indictment, and proved, that he conspired with some other person not tried upon that indictment. 2 Hawk. c. 47. s. 8; 3 Chit. Cr. L., (2nd Ed.) 1141; R. v. Thompson [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (35 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] [16 QBD 832] , R. v. Manning [12 QBD 241] , R. v. Plummer [(1902) 2 KB 339] .” 8.King v. Plummer [(1902) 2 KB 339] which is cited in support of this proposition was a case in which, on a trial of indictment charging three persons jointly with conspiring together, one person had pleaded guilty and a judgment passed against him, and the other two were acquitted. It was held that the judgment passed against one who had pleaded guilty was bad and could not stand. Lord Justice Wright observed at p. 343: “There is much authority to the effect that, if the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge of conspiracy, and the trial of all three defendants together had proceeded on that charge, and had resulted in the conviction of the appellant and the acquittal of the only alleged co- conspirators, no judgment could have been passed on the appellant, because the verdict must have been regarded as repugnant in finding that there was a criminal agreement between the appellant and the others and none between them and him : see Harison v. Errington [ ((Popham, 202))] , where upon an indictment of three for riot two were found not guilty and one guilty, and upon error brought it was held a “void verdict”, and said to be “like to [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (36 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] the case in 11 Hen. 4c. 4c. 2, conspiracy against two, and only one of them is found guilty, it is void, for one alone cannot conspire”. 9. Lord Justice Bruce at p. 347 quoted with approval the statement in Chitty's Criminal Law, 2nd Edn. Vol. iii, p. 1141: “And it is holden that if all the defendants mentioned in the indictment, except one, are acquitted, and it is not stated as a conspiracy with certain persons unknown, the conviction of the single defendant will be invalid, and no judgment can be passed upon him.” 10. The following observations made by Lord Justice Bruce are apposite in the context before us: “The point of the passage turns upon the circumstance that the defendants are included in the same indictment, and I think it logically follows from the nature of the offence of conspiracy that, where two or more persons are charged in the same indictment with conspiracy with one another, and the indictment contains no charge of their conspiring with other persons not named in the indictment, then, if all but one of the persons named in the indictment are acquitted, no valid judgment can be passed upon the one remaining person, [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (37 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] whether he has been convicted by the verdict of a jury or upon his own confession, because, as the record of conviction can only be made up in the terms of the indictment, it would be inconsistent and contradictory and so bad on its face. The gist of the crime of conspiracy is that two or more persons did combine, confederate, and agree together to carry out the object of the conspiracy.” 11. This position has also been accepted in India. In Gulab Singh v. Emperor [AIR 1916 All 141] Justice Knox followed the case of King v. Plummer [(1902) 2 KB 339] and held that “it is necessary in a prosecution for conspiracy to prove that there were two or more persons agreeing for the purpose of conspiracy” and that “there could not be a conspiracy of one”. 12. To similar effect was the judgment in King- Emperor v. Osman Sardar [AIR 1924 Call 809] where Chief Justice Sanderson observed that “the gist of an offence under Section 120-B was an alleged agreement between the two accused and when the jury found that one of them was not a party to the agreement and acquitted him of that charge, it followed as a matter of course that the other accused could not be convicted of that charge. The assent of both of them was necessary to constitute the agreement which was the basis of the charge”. [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (38 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] 13. Ratanlal in his Law of Crimes, 18th Edn., p. 270, has summarised the position as it emerges from the above two cases in the manner following: “Where, therefore, three persons were charged with having entered into a conspiracy, and two of them were acquitted, the third person could not be convicted of conspiracy whether the conviction be upon the verdict of a jury or upon his own confession”.” 28. The another submission made by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner is that the essential ingredients of provisions of section 7 of the amendment Act of 2018 to prosecute the petitioner are missing. There is no pending of work with the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner is simply a Constable posted at a particular Police Station. The investigation of a criminal case registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act could only be investigated by a person not below the rank of a Police Inspector. The investigation of the criminal case against the complainant party was assigned to Rajesh Kumar Sihag, the Police Inspector. The only work assigned to the accused petitioner was to serve the notice. It has also been submitted by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner that the nephew of the complainant namely; Pawan Kumar Arora, who was an accused in the NDPS matter has already been exonerated during the course of investigation as is clear from the closure [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (39 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] report dated 03.11.2022 and in such circumstances it cannot be said that any work was pending for which the accused petitioner can make a demand. The Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Mahendra Kumar Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.281/2023) decided on 28.8.2024 has observed in para 9 as under:- “9. Evidently, the record reveals that no work of the complainant was pending with the department what to say with the petitioner on the date of making of the complaint and on the date of managing trap, therefore, important ingredient of the offence for which charges have been framed is missing to the extent that any work was pending with the public servant. Recovery of each and every money on trap would not satisfy the requirement of gratification unless the money was being paid for discharge of official duty pending with the accused.” Further, the Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Rajesh Kumar Meel vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 307/2023), decided on 09.09.2024 has observed in para 13 as under:- “13. From the record, it is evident that no work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner on the date of making complaint or effecting trap [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (40 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] against another accused, hence, prima facie offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted.” 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), reported in Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009, SLP (Cri.) Nos. 6497 of 2020 & Other connected matters, decided on 15.12.2022, reported as (2023) 4 SCC 731 has observed in para 88 as under:- “88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under: 88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.” 30. In view of the discussion made above, the Court feels that it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of section 482 CrPC. 31. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition filed by the accused petitioner under section 482 CrPC is allowed. The order of the prosecution sanction dated 19.12.2020 issued by [2025:RJ-JP:7931] (41 of 41) [CRLMP-3162/2021] the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, is quashed and set aside with all consequential proceedings including the order of cognizance dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1, Jaipur, in Criminal Reg. Case No.01/2021, State vs. Naresh Chand Meena, by which cognizance has been taken against the accused petitioner for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and section 120B IPC and so also the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 245/2020 was registered at Police Station CPS, Jaipur, District ACB, Jodhpur for offences u/S 7 of amendment Act of 2018 read-with Section 120-B IPC qua the petitioner, are quashed and set aside. 32. Consequences to follow. 33. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma N.K./Dy. Registrar