[2025:RJ-JP:43029] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.658/2019 Pyarelal S/o Shri Ramdhan Meena, aged about 50 Years, R/o G.P. Johal Todabheem Karauli Ex.En., Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur, Block-Kota Raj. ----Petitioner Versus Administrator, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 467/2019 Amar Singh S/o Shri Lal Chand Meena, aged about 53 Years, R/o Plot No.107 Shiv Nagar Vistar Ramnagariya, Jagatpura Jaipur Permanent Address of Bhukrawali, Tehsil Hindon, Distt. Karauli At Present Posted As Assistant Engineer (Suspended) Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krish Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Administrator Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan Jan Path, Jaipur. 2. The General Manager (Administration) Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing, Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan Jan Path, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kota Range, Kota, Raj. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.547/2019 Somesh Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Jamna Prasad Agarwal, aged about 50 Years, R/o T-45 Aaditya Aavas Kota Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kota Range, Kota Raj. [2025:RJ-JP:43029] (2 of 5) [CRLW-658/2019] 3. Administrator Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur Raj. 4. General Manager (Administration) Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Mr. Vijay Choudhary Mr. Ram SIngh Gurjar Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/10/2025 1. In all the above criminal writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the sanction for prosecution vide order dated 27.05.2019 as well as impugned FIR No.247/2018 alleged under the provisions of Sections 7 & 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, 'the Act of 2018') read with Section 120B IPC. 2. As the facts, cause of action and grounds to challenge the impugned order as well as FIR in all the above petitions are almost similar, therefore, with the consent of parties, all the above petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that FIR was lodged maliciously and the petitioners are victim of conspiracy, whereas they have not committed the offence as alleged in the FIR. It has also been submitted that prosecution for [2025:RJ-JP:43029] (3 of 5) [CRLW-658/2019] sanction has been granted in quite mechanical manner without appreciating the facts correctly, whereas no case is made out against the petitioners for committing any offence under the Act of 2018. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that transcript of a telephonic talk has been misinterpreted, whereas there was no conclusive proof of demand which is an essential ingredient for constituting offence under Sections 7 & 7A of the Act of 2018. It is also submitted that grant of prosecution sanction is not a routine or mechanical act. The authority competent to issue sanction is under a legal obligation to objectively consider the facts and material of the case before according such approval. Since, the sanction is a condition precedent and forms the very foundation for launching prosecution, granting the same mechanically would cause miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. Merely, on the basis of suspicion not supported by legitimate evidence on record, prosecution sanction cannot be granted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed these criminal writ petitions and submitted that contents of the FIR are quite specific and reveal the offence of bribery as well as corruption on the part of the accused-petitioners. It is further submitted that the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of quashing of FIR is extremely limited and in the cases where mere reading of FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence and there is no apparent evidence of malafides, no interference can be made in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [2025:RJ-JP:43029] (4 of 5) [CRLW-658/2019] 6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the order dated 27.05.2019 has been issued by the Competent Authority and bare perusal of the same would reveal that before issuing sanction, each and every fact as well as material piece of evidence has been duly considered by the Competent Authority and it cannot be said that the sanction has been issued without due application of mind. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has also been submitted that after grant of sanction, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and thereafter, charges have also been framed. After framing of charges, trial is proceeding further and even statements of prosecution witnesses has been recorded, therefore, at this stage and more particularly looking to the meticulous examination of the record by the Competent Authority while issuing sanction, no interference can be made in the instant petitions. 8. Heard and considered the submissions as well as perused the record. 9. The FIR No.247/2018 has been examined by this Court and bare perusal of the same would reveal that the procedure was followed by the authorities and contents of FIR are quite specific, which prima facie constitute offences as alleged in the FIR, hence, at this stage no interference can be made in the impugned FIR by this Court in the light of limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. [2025:RJ-JP:43029] (5 of 5) [CRLW-658/2019] 10. So far as granting of prosecution sanction is concerned, the same can be challenged on limited grounds, such as, where the petitioners have come out with a case that the sanction has been issued by the incompetent authority; or in the cases, where bare perusal of the FIR does not reveal commission of any cognizable offences. In the instant cases, petitioners have utterly failed to establish any such ground. So far as ground with regard to issuance of order of granting sanction in mechanical manner is concerned, I have perused the order and found that relevant material has been duly considered by the Competent Authority, which was placed by the Investigating Officer before the authority for the purpose of proving demand and recovery of the bribe as well as to lead inference with regard to a motive. 11. Under these circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order for prosecution sanction dated 27.05.2019. Hence, in the light of aforesaid observations, these criminal writ petitions are, hereby, dismissed. 12. However, it is made clear that no observation made in the instant order shall adversely affect the trial of the case and the same shall be decided by the Competent Court on the basis of evidence placed before the learned Court below. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/5-7