[2025:RJ-JP:49220] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6080/2023 Jalandhar Yogi S/o Shri Shivcharan Yogi, R/o Gorakh Mohalla, Behind Gorakh Mandir, Hindaun City, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. C.B.I., Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Beniram Meena S/o Shri Shripal Meena, R/o Village La- hawad, Tehsil Nadauti, District Karauli, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Spl. PP for CBI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/11/2025 Instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.118/2023 (CIS No.209/2023) titled as C.B.I. V. Jalandhar Yogi, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was dismissed. Succinctly stated, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner was posted as Chief Office Superintendent (COS), in the AEN office of WCR, Gangapur City. It was alleged that during the course of his employment, the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.11,500/- from the complainant for preparing his final bill and facilitating payment thereof in respect of executed work done by the complainant. The complainant being unwilling to pay the bribe, [2025:RJ-JP:49220] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6080/2023] submitted a complaint against the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jaipur. The complaint was verified, and a prima facie offence under Section 7 of the PC Act was found proved against the petitioner. Consequently, on 16.06.2020, FIR No.RC JAI 2020 A 0002 was registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court and trial was commenced. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial Court on 03.08.2023, contending that the prosecution sanction granted against him was invalid as same had been issued without application of mind by the concerned authority, and therefore, he could not be legally prosecuted and prayed for his discharge. During pendency of the said application, another application was filed by the petitioner on 14.08.2023 stating that respondent-CBI had already filed its reply to the earlier application and that the petitioner had also placed on record his written arguments. Reiterating the prayer for discharge, the petitioner accordingly sought expeditious disposal of the application. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 21.08.2023, the learned trial Court dismissed the application dated 14.08.2023 while observing that the application dated 03.08.2023 would be considered and decided at the stage of final adjudication of the matter. Being aggrieved of the said order, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from gross illegality. It is [2025:RJ-JP:49220] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6080/2023] contended that Court below has erred in keeping the petitioner’s application dated 03.08.2023 seeking discharge from prosecution pending, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is contended that an accused cannot be compelled to face trial when a challenge to the prosecution sanction, touching upon the very maintainability of the proceedings, has been raised. Counsel submits that the issues relating to maintainability must be adjudicated at the threshold. Counsel places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed V. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1979) 4 SCC 172, wherein, it has been observed that the grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned. Counsel thus, prays that the instant Criminal Misc. Petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 being per se illegal and erroneous, be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI submits that out of the total 17 prosecution witnesses, only one or two witnesses remain to be examined and as such, the trial is at fag end. It is further submitted that the petitioner has chosen to question the validity of the prosecution sanction only after the examination of PW-6 Harish Kumar, the authority who had issued the said sanction. Counsel contends that at this advanced stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot embark upon an evaluation or appreciation of the evidentiary worth of the prosecution witness as [2025:RJ-JP:49220] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6080/2023] such assessment can be undertaken only upon completion of the entire evidence at the stage of final adjudication. Counsel places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar V. Chairman, Airport Authority of India and Anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 532, wherein, it has been observed that since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the trial judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the trial Court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. He further places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parkash Singh Badal V. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1, wherein it has been observed that the sanction in the instant case related to the offences relatable to the Act. There is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind. The former question can be agitated at the threshold but the latter is a question which has to be raised during trial. I have heard the contentions made by the counsel for the parties at bar and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application dated 03.08.2023 was filed by the petitioner when 13 out of the 17 prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The examination of witness PW-6, who issued prosecution sanction, was made on 28.07.2022. Further, the counsel for respondent-CBI has informed that only one or two prosecution witnesses remain to be examined. The aforesaid circumstances [2025:RJ-JP:49220] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6080/2023] clearly indicate that the prosecution evidence is at fag end. Since the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of prosecution sanction is in the light of the cross-examination of sanctioning authority, it is not at all appropriate for this Court, at this stage when the matter is in the final phase before the trial court, to form any opinion on this issue. It is proper to leave for the trial court to decide the issue of valid sanction in accordance with law, along with all other evidence. The trial Court further noted that the petitioner had neither questioned the competence of PW-6, nor challenged the validity of the prosecution sanction document at the appropriate stage. At this belated stage, the petitioner assailed the prosecution sanction on the ground that same had been issued by PW-6 without due application of mind. Further, observed that although the point raised by the petitioner may require consideration, it would not be appropriate to undertake such an exercise during the course of prosecution evidence and same would be appropriately examined at the stage of final adjudication of the matter. I fortify my view from the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) and Parkash Singh Badal (Supra), thus, in my considered opinion the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application dated 14.08.2023 as the evaluation of the evidentiary worth of the testimony of a witness is a matter to be undertaken at the time of final adjudication, particularly when the trial is at fag end. Hence, this Court finds no ground to warrant interference. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition stands dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:49220] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6080/2023] This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court shall consider and decide the issue raised in this petition independently in accordance with law. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /81