$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 369/2026 AJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, Advocates. versus CBI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, SPP. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 18975/2026 (EXEMPTION) CRL.M.A. 18976/2026 (EXEMPTION) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 369/2026 and CRL.M.A. 18974/2026 3. The petition is for the following reliefs: “A) Allow the present Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and set aside the 20.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge, (PC ACT) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi in CBI Case N0.37/2025; and B) Direct the Special Judge, PC ACT (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi to dispose of applications filed by the petitioner for discharge/dropping of proceedings for want of valid prosecution sanction required U/s 19 of P.C. Act, 1988 before the commencement of the trial;” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:28:39 4. This revision petition essentially seeks to challenge the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [“PC Act”] Central Bureau of Investigation [“CBI”] - 18, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi [“the Special Judge”], whereby, the petitioner’s application seeking discharge in CBI Case NO.37/2025 has been rejected and charges under Section 7 of the PC Act, have been framed against him. 5. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner joined Delhi Police as Constable on 20.03.2006 and was later promoted to rank of Head Constable vide notification dated 21.06.2013 at Police Chowki, Raghubir Nagar. 6. A complaint dated 29.11.2024 was lodged by one Anita Devi before CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch. The complainant alleged that she was engaged in lottery/Satta activities. It is her case that the accused police officials demanded a bribe of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for permitting her to continue such activities. Further the petitioner along with chowki-in-charge, participated in the demand of illegal gratification. 7. Pursuant thereto, CBI registered an FIR and organized a trap. Following the trap, the CBI apprehended the accused persons. Upon completion of the investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet for offences punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 8. Subsequently the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, was granted on 27.03.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Head Constable by the Commissioner of Police. 9. The sole ground raised by the petitioner is confined to the validity of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:28:39 the sanction granted under Section 19 of the PC Act. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the sanction order impugned in the present proceedings has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, whereas, the competent authority to accord such sanction was the Commissioner of Police. It is further submitted that the authority competent to remove the petitioner from service alone was empowered to grant sanction for petitioner’s prosecution. Reliance is placed on Article 311 of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PC Act to corroborate aforesaid submission. 11. He further avers that the Special Judge erroneously deferred the consideration of this foundation jurisdictional issue to the stage of trail, whereas, the legality and competence of the sanction ought to have been conclusively determined before directing the petitioner to face trail. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and have perused the record. 13. A perusal of the order dated 20.03.2026, would indicate that the Special Judge has considered the applicable rules and regulations. In paragraph no. 40 thereof, it has come on record that a Deputy Commissioner of Police exercises the power and performs the duties of Commissioner of Police by virtue of Sections 6 and 8 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. As per Section 12 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 the Deputy Commissioner of Police is also the appointing authority for the members of the Delhi Police in the rank of Sub-Inspector, Constable and Head-constable. 14. The order of the petitioner has been signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing & Provisioning) in accordance with rule 9 of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rule 1980. Even the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:28:39 promotion order would indicate that it is the Deputy Commissioner of Police who has signed the same. Merely, the order of promotion has been issued for the Commissioner of Police, does not mean that the Deputy Commissioner of Police is denuded from exercising disciplinary power. The Deputy Commissioner of Police has been found to have exercised his independent power being appointing authority. The appointing authority does not change merely because the Deputy Commissioner of Police has signed the promotion order for the Commissioner of Police. 15. In paragraph no. 41 to 43 of the order of the Special Court is extracted as under: “41. It appears that the Orders of promotion relied upon by the accused were signed by the DCP (L & P) in accordance with Rule 9 of the promotion rules. The Orders were signed for Commissioner of Police because as per the Delhi Police Act a DCP shall exercise such powers of Commissioner of Police as may be specified and rule 9 is one such specific instance where power of Commissioner of Police has been delegated to the DCP. The DCP therefore exercises the power of Commissioner of Police to sign the promotion order under a delegated legislation, however, he signs the said order in his independent capacity as appointing authority. Hence, the appointing authority does not change merely because the DCP has signed the promotion order for Commissioner of Police. In fact, the power of Commissioner of Police to sign the promotion order has been delegated to the DCP under Rule 9 of the promotion rules because as per Sec. 12 of the Delhi Police Act, DCP is the appointing authority for police officials upto the rank of SI. 42. The plea of the accused that the DCP has signed the promotion orders on behalf of Commissioner of Police and thus his appointing authority is Commissioner of Police & not DCP, can be tested only during the trial. This plea raised by the accused cannot be accepted at the stage of charge when prima facie it appears that the promotion orders may have been signed by the DCP for Commissioner of Police under delegated legislation but in his own independent capacity as appointing authority, in view of Sec. 6, 8 & 12 of the Delhi Police Act & Rule 9 of the promotion rules. 43. Section 119 of BSA, 2023 read with illustration (e) (erstwhile Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) provides that the Court may presume that judicial and official acts were regularly performed. In view This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:28:39 of this provision, a presumption that the official act of signing the promotion order has been performed regularly as per Rule 9 of the promotion rules, arises in favour of the prosecution that can be rebutted by the accused only at the stage of trial.” 16. This Court in the case of Const. Satish Kumar v. State of Delhi1 in paragraph no. 25 has held as under: “25. Coming to the question of validity of Ext. PW6/A Sanction order and whether the Sanction authority gave the same is valid. The sanction order Ext. PW6/A was accorded by Vivek Gogia IPS, who was holding the position of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police at the relevant time. A bare reading of Section 12 and Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 makes it clear that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police is empowered to appoint as well as order removal from service of officers of subordinate rank, which includes constables. Since the test under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act is whether the sanctioning authority is competent to remove the accused from office, and since that power expressly vests in the Addl. DCP under the abovesaid statute, Vivek Gogia IPS was fully competent to accord sanction vide Ext. PW6/A Sanction order.” 17. The aforesaid enunciation of law lends support to prima facie view taken by the Special Judge. The validity of prosecution sanction cannot be assailed merely on the ground that the promotion order was issued for the Commissioner of Police. Once the statutory scheme recognises the Deputy Commissioner of Police as the appointing and disciplinary authority for police officials up to the rank of Sub-Inspector, the sanction accorded by such authority cannot, at this stage, be held to be without jurisdiction. This Court does not find the said view to be ex facie contrary to the statutory scheme so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 18. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to raise all the issues during the course of the trial. This aspect can further be looked into by the Special Court during the course of trial. 1 2026:DHC:3512 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:28:39 19. With the aforesaid observations finding no justification to interfere at this stage, the instant revision petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 6, 2026 Aks/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:28:39