1 2025:CGHC:7152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 15 of 2025 Mr. Karun Dahariya S/o S.N. Dahariya Aged About 36 Years The Then Ceo, Janpad Panchayat, Gariyaband, Occupation- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Present Address- Kusmi, District Balrampur, Chhattisgar ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 -Superintendent Of Police Acb/eow, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Station House Officer Police Station Eow/acb, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. AG. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 07/02/2025 2 1. Applicant has filed this instant revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 with following prayer: “that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 05/11/2024 as well as all the consequential proceedings and application dated 23/09/2023 may be allowed and prosecution sanction order dated 31/03/2023 passed by sanctioning authority may be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the present revision is filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05/11/2024 passed in Trial No.01/23, whereby learned Special Judge, (PC Act) and First Additional Session Judge, Raipur, has rejected the application challenging the prosecution sanction order bearing no.08-19/2023/21-a (prosecution) dated 31/03/2023 passed in the name of Governor by Additional Secretory, Law and Legislative Department, State of Chhattisgarh on the ground that in the said prosecution sanction order, it has been clearly mentioned that after examining all the facts, circumstances and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie there are grounds for granting prosecution sanction against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order dated 05/11/2024 is perverse and contrary to the law, therefore, liable to be set-aside on the following grounds: (1). Without examining the material facts, sanction was granted in a very mechanical manner. 3 (2). Complainant was not having any locus to file the complaint, he was stranger to entire process of sanction of project and disbursement of amount. (3). No tender was awarded for execution of such work on the date of said complaint dated 27/10/2022 or 04/11/2022. Tender will be awarded and work will be executed only after the disbursement of amount. However, in the sanction order, it has been observed that bribe was demanded for the work which was already executed. The sanctioning authority had not considered the fact that when amount was already disbursed on the account of Gram Panchayat then why the demand of bribe will be made. (4). It has not examined the record from which it is clearly reflected that on 31/10/2022, the petitioner directed to office assistant to disburse the first installment for the proposed work in the account of Gram Panchayat through PFMS portal and for this necessary sanction was granted. (5). Petitioner was on special duty from 1/11/2022 to 03/11/2022 at Raipur, therefore, there was no occasion to meet the complainant for making such unlawful demand as alleged by him. (6). After disbursement of amount vide order dated 31/10/2022, the said amount was credited in the account of concerned Gram Panchayat on 03/11/2022 and consequently vouchers were generated through PFMS portal. The said voucher is public document, can be accessed by anyone from E-swaraj portal. (7). The entire complaint was lodged only to harass the petitioner because he initiated several enquires against the complainant, who was the member of Gram Panchayat and his brother, who was the president of Congress Committee, Gariyaband. 4 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and would submits that grounds raised by the applicant before this Court may be raised before the trial Court during trial. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record/material available on record including the impugned order. 6. Perusal of records/material available on record would show that before passing the impugned order, the Competent Authority/Sanctioning Authority has considered all the materials/ evidence available and, thereafter, granted the prosecution sanction. The learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant on the ground that in the said prosecution sanction order, it has been clearly mentioned that after examining all the facts, circumstances and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie there are grounds for granting prosecution sanction against the present applicant. 7. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which warrants interfere by this Court. The grounds raised by counsel for the applicant before this Court may be raised before the trial Court during trial. At this stage, facts cannot be appreciated by this Court, it would be appreciated by the trial Court during trial. 5 8. Accordingly, present revision being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, applicant will be at liberty to challenge the prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act before the concerned trial Court at appropriate stage and raised all the grounds/defence there. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-