HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1415/2025 Gajraj Meena S/o Shri Moolchand Meena, aged about 56 Years, R/o Gudha, Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu, Presently Residing At Plot No. 223, Laxmi Vihar, Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi 110011. 2. Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi 110011. 3. Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Headquarter, North Western Railway, Jaipur. 4. Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, North Western Railway, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore Mr. Sukesh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K.Kaushik JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the respondents, whereby sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been granted. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein an FIR was registered (2 of 4) [CRLW-1415/2025] under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sanction has been issued by the Sanctioning Authority without due application of mind. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case. Counsel submits that when the statement of PW5- Aroma Singh Thakur, who has issued sanction in question, was recorded, a very detailed cross-examination with the aforesaid witness was done wherein she has admitted that a copy of the charge-sheet submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau was not given to her and only the factual report was produced. She has also admitted that even the FSL report and CD of the criminal case was not produced. Hence, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority while passing the impugned order and granted sanction of prosecution against the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan, reported in 2007(11) SCC 273 and in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gurjarat, reported in 1997(7) SCC 622. In view of the submissions made herein above, the order impugned passed by the respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the prayer and submits that in the entire memo of petition, the details pertaining to the FIRs and the criminal case are not mentioned. Counsel submits that on the basis of the sanction issued by the Sanctioning Authority, (3 of 4) [CRLW-1415/2025] cognizance was taken against the petitioner and thereafter, the charges were framed and this fact has not been mentioned in the memo of the petition. Counsel submits that there is due application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority before passing the order of granting sanction. This fact is clear from the Examination-in-Chief of PW5- Aroma Singh Thakur, wherein she has accepted that after perusing the file along with relevant documents, the memo of transcript and statements of witness, the sanction was granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after due application of mind. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that criminal case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner with regard to acceptance of bribe. The chargesheet for the above stated offence was submitted against the petitioner before the Competent Court of law on the basis of the prosecution sanction order dated 11.02.2022. 6. It appears that after taking cognizance and framing of the charge-sheet, when the trial commenced against the petitioner, the statement of PW5-Aroma Singh Thakur was recorded wherein she appeared in the witness box and her statement in Examination-in-Chief was recorded and she was also put to cross- examination. She has stated that the relevant documents i.e. file and memo of transcript and the statements of the witness were produced before her and after due application of her independent mind, she has passed the order of granting sanction to prosecute (4 of 4) [CRLW-1415/2025] the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the basis thereof, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. 7. When this witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the petitioner, she has admitted that copy of the charge-sheet submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau was not produced before her and only the factual report of the case was submitted before her. The concerned CD and FSL were also not received and she has not heard the voice recorded in the CD. But looking to the transcript of the voice recorded in the memo of transcript, the order impugned has been passed. This Court at this stage, cannot appreciate the evidence of this witness because any observations or finding made by this Court may affect the case of either side before the trial Court. The petitioner would be at liberty to take all these objections/arguments at appropriate stage of the trial before the trial Court. But looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find a fit case to make comment at this stage. 8. With the observations, the present criminal writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/26