Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Rampratap … vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 March, 2025
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2025:RJ-JP:5846]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6395/2022
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rampratap Meena, aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Ghati Surajpura, Near New Terminal Tower,
Siddharth Nagar-A Block Jaipur, Presently Section Officer
(Appeal) Home Group-11, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Accused Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Public Prosecutor.
—-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rampratap Meena, aged About 40
Years, R/o Ghati Surajprua Near New Terminal Tower Siddhath
Nagar-A Block Jaipur (Presently Section Officer (Appeal) Home
Group-11 Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
—-Accused/ Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of
Personnel Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
2. Deputy Secretary, Department Of Personnel (A-
3/complaints) Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with
Mr. Vaibhav Jeswani &
Mr. Aditya Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, learned PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
REPORTABLE:
Reserved on ::: February 10, 2025
Pronounced on ::: March 07, 2025
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (2 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
1. Since the controversy involved in both the petitions
i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6395/2022 and S.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022 filed by the accused
petitioner, arises out of FIR No. 252/2019 dated 22.8.2019
registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti
Corruption Bureau, District Jaipur for the offences punishable
under sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short ‘the amended Act of
2018’) and section 120B IPC, hence, same are being decided
by this common order.
2. By filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6395/2022
under section 482 CrPC, the accused-petitioner has prayed to
quash the FIR No.252/2019 dated 22.08.2019 registered with
Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Jaipur and also prayed to quash and set aside the
trial proceedings pending before the Court of learned Special
Judge, ACD No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Sessions Case No.
27/2021 (CIS No.39/2021), titled as State of Rajasthan V.
Rakesh Kumar Meena in regard to FIR No. 252/2019 dated
22.08.2019.
3. By filing S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 22/2022
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule
315(1)(H) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the
accused-petitioner has prayed to accept and allow this writ
petition and also to quash and set aside the impugned
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (3 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
prosecution sanction order dated 06.10.2020 (Annex.2)
issued by the respondent No.2.
4. The facts of the case in nutshell are that
complainant Rajesh Kumar Rao, Police Inspector, Technical
Branch, Anti Corruption Bureau, submitted a report, which
reads as under:-
vfr- eq[; lfpo ¼x`g½ jktLFkku] t;iqj ds v}Z’kkldh; i=
fnukad 04-02-2019 }kjk bl vk’k; dh lwpuk nh xbZ fd
‘kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds x`g foHkkx ds xqzi& II esa dk;Zjr
dkfeZdksa }kjk jktLFkku v/khuLFk iqfyl lsok ds nks”kh iqfyl
dkfeZdksa ls feyhHkxr dj] muls ikfjrks”k.k izkIr dj] muds
i{k esa i=kofy;ksa ij fVIi.kh dh tkrh gSA :Yl 34 ds rgr
vuq’kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk nf.Mr vkSj vihyh; izkf/kdkjh ds
vkns’k ls O;fFkr nks”kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa }kjk jkT;iky egksn; ds
le{k iqufoZpkj ;kfpdk nkf[ky dh tkrh gS] ftl ij x`g
foHkkx dh fVIif.k;ka pkgh tkrh gSA x`g ¼xqzi& II½ ds dkfeZdksa }
kjk feyhHkxr dj iqufoZpkj ;kfpdkvksa ij Bksl vk/kkj ugha
gksrs gq, Hkh nks”kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ds i{k esa fVIif.k;ka vafdr dh
tkrh gSA vafdr fVIif.k;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS
fd ;g fVIif.k;ka nks”kh iqfyldfeZ;ksa }kjk fy[kh xbZ gS] uk fd
x`g ¼xqzi&II½ esa dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa }kjk bu Hkz”V d`R;ksa esa eq[;
Hkwfedk vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh jkds’k dqekj eh.kk }kjk fd;k tkuk
izdV gksrk gSA mDr lwpuk dh iqf”V ds Øe esa jkds’k dqekj
eh.kk ds eksckby uacj 94142&00145 dh lh-Mh-vkj- izkIr dj
fo’ys”k.k djok;k x;k rFkk xksiuh; lR;kiu fd;k x;k]
ftlesa ;g ik;k x;k fd jkds’k dqekj eh.kk }kjk bl ‘kk[kk esa
vihy ls lacaf/kr vkus okyh i=kofy;ksa esa lacaf/kr
vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa] fo’ks”kr% v/khuLFk iqfyl lsok ds
vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ds fo#) dh xbZ n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ls
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (4 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]jkgr iznku fd;s tkus dk vk’oklu nsdj Hkz”V o voS/k lk/kuksa
ls fu;fer :i ls fj’or jkf’k ,oa vU; lkexzh izkIr fd;k
tkuk izdV gqvkA bl ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds eksckby dks
vUrkojks/k ij fy;k tkdj lquus ls izdV gqvk fd
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr jkds’k dqekj eh.kk }kjk vihy djus okys
lacaf/kr dkfeZdksa ls Lo;a ds fy;s rFkk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds uke
ls fj’or jkf’k] ‘kjkc rFkk vU; lkexzh dh fu;fer :i ls
ekax dh tk jgh gS rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk dh xbZ okrkZvksa
dk fooj.k i=koyh ij miyC/k djk;k x;k gSA iqfyl fujh{kd
ikjley ls djok;s x;s xksiuh; lR;kiu esa Hkh
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/k izekf.kr ik;s x;sAOn the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No.
252/2019 dated 22.8.2019 was registered at Police Station
Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, District
Jaipur for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A and 8
of the amended Act of 2018 and section 120B IPC. After trap
proceedings, the accused-petitioner was arrested.
5. After investigation the police submitted the charge-
sheet against the accused-petitioner for the offences
punishable under sections 7, 7A of the amended Act of 2018
and section 354 IPC in the competent Court.
6. The learned trial court after taking cognizance on
24.05.2022, framed the charges against the accused
petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of
the amended Act of 2018 and section 354 IPC.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (5 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused
petitioner in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6395/2022 has
submitted that the proceedings in entirety, including the
complaint by Mr. Rajeeva Swarup, the present F.I.R. against
the petitioner and even the trial proceedings are all nothing
but gross abuse of the process of law and power on account
of being arbitrary, false, malicious and vexatious in nature.
Counsel submitted that the original complainant, the then
Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Mr. Rajeeva Swarup on
suspicion wrote a letter dated 04.02.2019 to the ACB
Department leveling charges against the then Joint Secretary
Ms. Seema Singh, along with the petitioner and other
unnamed personnel, however, Mr. Swarup arbitrarily,
malafidely and maliciously solely chose the accused petitioner
for investigation and in pursuance of the letter of Mr. Swarup
dated 04.02.2019, the ACB unlawfully initiated the
investigation. The contents of letter dated 04.02.2019 are
that “unfortunately, even my repeated directions have had no
effects. Ms. Seema Singh retired on Jan. 31st, 2019. It is
most surprising that just before her retirement she signed 32
such files and sent, the recommendations.” Counsel
submitted that it is evident from the aforesaid letter that the
allegation was specifically with regard to Ms. Seema Singh,
despite this the accused petitioner was arbitrarily and
unlawfully forced to face the wrath which is prima facie
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (6 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
vexatious, malicious and excessive abuse of power and
position by senior officials. The ACB Department on malicious
instructions of senior officials of Department of Home namely
Mr. Rajeeva Swarup, the then Additional Chief Secretary
(Home) who later-on was promoted to the post of Chief
Secretary only acted against the accused petitioner and
arbitrarily, discriminatorily, illicitly, vexatious, maliciously and
malafidely did not take any action against the other personnel
of the Department of the accused petitioner, despite cogent
fact such as Ms. Seema Singh was the signing authority on all
those alleged documents. Counsel further submitted that Mr.
Swarup, himself granted an approval as well as extensions to
monitor and intercept the mobile phone of the petitioner for a
period exceeding the statutory limit. Counsel also submitted
that Mr. Swarup, as soon as promoted on the post of Chief
Secretary of Government of Rajasthan vide order dated
02.07.2020 maliciously attempted to fasten the prosecution
sanction which was ordered vide order dated 06.10.2020,
however, even after almost 4 months of passing, the ACB did
not file the complaint before the learned Trial Court. This is
violation of the principle of “Nemo judex in causa sua” as the
original complainant as well as the approvals for prosecution
has been granted by the same person Mr. Swarup. Counsel
further submitted that from all the facts it is abundantly clear
that the proceedings are the result of arbitrary selective,
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (7 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
malicious, false and vexatious actions of Mr. Swarup in order
to harass and defame the petitioner. Counsel further
submitted that as per mandate under Section 17-A of the Act
of 1988, previous sanction is necessary for initiating
investigation and since no previous approval was taken by the
Investigating Agency i.e. ACB in the instant case, before
initiating investigation (since monitoring and interception of
mobile of the petitioner), therefore, the entire proceedings
are non est and void ab initio. Counsel also submitted that in
regard to Section 17A of the amended Act of 2018 the
concerned department has issued multiple guidelines
including standard operating procedures. Counsel further
submitted that the Department of Home, Government of
Rajasthan vide letter No. F. 16(1) Home-11/2013 Part dated
27.05.2022 has issued “Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
for processing of cases under Section 17A of Act, 1988.
Counsel also submitted that the issue is no more res
integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 has explicitly stated that the
compliance of Section 17A of the amended Act of 1988 is
mandatory.
Counsel also submitted that Rajasthan High Court,
Principal Bench at Jodhpur, in the matter of Tara Ram Mali
& Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc..
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (8 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Petition No. 3592/2021) on 22.09.2021 and Rai Sahab
Swami v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No. 6477/2021) on 06.12.2021 granted interim
order, in which without taking previous sanction from the
competent authority in compliance of Section 17-A of the Act
of 1988, F.I.R. has been lodged by the A.C.B./Investigating
Agency. The Hon’ble High Court while taking into
consideration the provisions of Section 17-A of the amended
Act stayed the trial proceedings in favour of the accused
petitioners therein.
Counsel further submitted that the allegation under
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused
petitioner is false, baseless, and malicious in nature. Counsel
also submitted that the affidavits sworn-in by Smt. Rajbala
and Pramila Kumari Chahar dated 23.10.2019 and those of
Smt. Mamta Sharma and Smt. Pooja Kanwar dated
25.08.2020 clearly state that the ACB has forced and under
severe duress and threat they were made to make a false
statement which was recorded by the ACB under Section 161
of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Counsel also submitted that the letter dated
10.05.2022 issued by the Home Department, Government of
Rajasthan, which was in regard to the letter of the accused
petitioner dated 29.09.2021 which was in compliance of the
judgment of Rajasthan State Information Commission dated
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (9 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
29.03.2020, explicitly stated that the department did not
receive any complaint against the accused petitioner from
any women. Thereby, the entire proceedings were mere
fabrication of facts in order to harass and defame the accused
petitioner.
Counsel also submitted that the learned Trial Court
erred in ignoring the cogent facts and ordered to frame
charges vide order dated 24.05.2022, which is excessive and
abuse of process of law.
Counsel further submitted that the mobile phone of
the accused petitioner was monitored and intercepted by
violating the Indian Telegraph Act and rules made therein.
Thereby, such actions of the ACB Department are violative of
Right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of
India. Counsel submitted that prima facie error is the reason
for monitoring and interception of mobile of the accused
petitioner having number 94142-00145 which is stated in the
order dated 05.02.2022 that “…is possibly being used for
illegal activities relating to incitement to the commission of an
offence affecting public safety and whereas it is necessary
and expedient to prevent such situation by keeping the above
mentioned Mobile Number under observation, for a period of
60 days.” However, the allegations against the petitioner was
by no stretch of imagination would fall within the scope of
“public safety”.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (10 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Counsel also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India,
reported in (2020) 3 SCC 637 has explained scope of
“public safety”. Thereby, the orders dated 05.02.2019,
02.04.2019 and 30.05.2019 regarding the monitoring and
interception is based on fabricated, false and arbitrary
reasoning as there was absence of “reason”.
Counsel submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v.
Union of India, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 301 framed
guidelines regarding phone tapping. In light of the aforesaid
judgment, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.,
in Writ Petition No. 2367/2019 decided on 22.10.2019,
has defined the scope of “public safety”. The ACB Department
failed to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and mis-interpreted the “public safety” to monitor or
intercept the petitioner, which is violative of Article 21 of
Constitution of India.
Counsel also submitted that as per Rule 419A(2) of
Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 (for short ‘the Rules of 1951’),
framed and notified under section 5 of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 (for short ‘the Act of 1885’), the order issued by
the competent authority for inception of any message or class
of messages under section 5(2) of the Act of 1885 read with
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (11 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Rule 419A(1) of the Rules of 1951, such an order shall
contain the reasons for such direction and a copy of such
order shall be forwarded to the Review Committee constituted
under Rule 419A(16) within the period of 7 working days and
the Committee shall meet at least once in two months. When
the review committee is of the opinion that the directions are
not in accordance with provisions given in rules, it may set
aside the directions. In the present matter, it is quintessential
to state that there is no document on record- either as part of
charge sheet or otherwise to establish the observance of the
aforementioned procedure that is sacrosanct.
Counsel further submitted that the Rajasthan State
Information Commission vide order dated 23.03.2022 in
regard to the interception directs the State Public Information
Officer and Deputy Government Secretary Home Department
Secretariat, Jaipur, to provide needful information but the
concerned authorities tried to frame up and intentionally tried
to obviate the matter and no requisite information has been
received under Right To Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the
Act of 2005’).
Counsel submitted that in light of the above facts, it
is clear that the entire investigation against the accused
petitioner was merely abuse of power and violation of the due
process of law and post to harass and defame the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (12 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Also, such actions are infringing Article 21 of Constitution of
India.
Counsel also submitted that neither any recovery of
bribe amount has been made from the petitioner nor any
demand was made by him nor he accepted the money.
Counsel also submitted that the delinquent Police Officer
whose reports were allegedly tampered by the petitioner
which helped in reinstatement in service has not been proved
by any evidence (direct or corroborative).
Counsel also submitted that the transcript of
bribery demand talk between Shri Parasmal Panwar, Police
Inspector, ACB and Shri Rakesh Kumar Meena (present
petitioner) which was recorded in the micro SD card installed
in the voice recorder just against the trap proceedings
against Shri Rakesh Kumar Meena (present petitioner)
Section Officer Home Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan on dated
17.05.2019 and 18.07.2019 states that the demand for bribe
has not been clearly found in the said conversation, which
was overlooked during cognizance which apparently
vindicates the arbitrariness of the concerned authorities.
Counsel also submitted that the ACB has failed to provide any
incriminating evidences against the petitioner which
establishes the allegations. Hence, the entire proceedings
were selectively used to harass and defame the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (13 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Thereby the FIR No. 252/2019 and the trial proceedings are
bound to be quashed and set-aside.
Counsel also submitted that the amended Act of
2018 has no provision under Section 7/7A, but instead the
parent legislation i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has
Section 7 & 7A. Also, Section 7A was inserted in the parent
legislation i.e. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide
amendment, short titled as “Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018”.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing
for the accused petitioner and submitted that the impugned
FIR was lodged by the complainant after verification and after
adopting the process of law. Learned Public Prosecutor further
submitted that on the basis of material collected by the
Investigating Agency, it is proved that there are specific
allegations against the accused petitioner. Thus, no
interference is required to be made by this Court.
9. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22/2022,
counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has submitted
that the impugned sanction is not sustainable in the eyes of
the law for being contrary to the provisions of the facts, the
law and the relevant rules pertaining to the case. Counsel
further submitted that the impugned sanction is not
sustainable in the eyes of the law because the same has been
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (14 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
issued in the violation of the principles without giving an
adequate opportunity to the petitioner. Counsel also
submitted that the prosecution has to satisfy that at the time
of sending the matter for the grant of sanction by the
competent authority, adequate material for such grant was
made available to the said authority. This may also be evident
from the sanction order, unless it is extremely comprehensive
or voluminous all the facts and circumstances of the case
should be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every
individual case, the court has to find out whether there has
been an independent application of mind on the part of the
sanctioning authority concerned vis-a-vis the material placed
before it. Counsel further submitted that it is so necessary for
the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning
authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction
only after having had full knowledge of the material facts
related to the case. Counsel also submitted that the grant of
sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in
this regard must be observed with complete strictness
keeping in mind the public interest and the protection
available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
Counsel further submitted that it is to be kept in mind that
the sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not a
mundane or routine exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act
which affords protection to the government servant against
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (15 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
frivolous and malicious prosecution. Counsel also submitted
that the authority who issued sanction was not competent to
issue impugned sanction, as accused petitioner cannot be
removed from his office by this authority.
Counsel also submitted that the order of sanction
must prima facie disclose that the sanctioning authority has
considered the evidence and other material placed before it.
In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and
satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were
placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had
applied its mind on the same.
Counsel further submitted that if the sanction order
on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR,
disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet
and other materials on record were placed before the
sanctioning authority and if it should be further discernible
from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning
authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn
that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.
This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the
validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that
the order suffers from the vice of total non-application of
mind, which is clearly indicating in this case.
Counsel also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (16 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in 2014 (14) SCC 295
has laid down the following guidelines which need to be
followed with complete strictness by the competent
authorities while considering grant of sanction:-
(i) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to
the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure
statements, statement of witnesses, recovery memos, draft
charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so
sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which
may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis
of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(ii) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious
scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution
independently applying its mind and taking into consideration
all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while
discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(iii) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly
keeping in mind the public interest and the protection
available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(iv) The order of sanction should make it evident that the
authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and
had applied its mind to all the relevant material. In every
individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy
the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts
had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (17 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]authority had applied its mind on the same and that the
sanction had been granted in accordance with law.
Counsel also submitted that the permission to
intercept the mobile phone of the petitioner is in blatant
violation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph
Rules 1951 framed and notified under Sec. 5(2) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885. Counsel further submitted that there is
nothing on record purporting to be the previous approval
accorded under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
Counsel in support of his submissions has placed
reliance upon the order dated 30.04.2008 delivered by teh
Madras High Court in the case of P. Govindan vs. State
Rep. By Inspector of Police, CB CID, Dharmapuri (Crl.
R.C. NO.272 of 2006).
10. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions
advanced by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner
and submitted that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority
granted prosecution sanction after going through the material
made available to him. Thus, no interference is warranted in
the matter.
11. Heard learned counsels appearing for the accused
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
and gone through the entire material including the FIR,
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (18 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
charge-sheet, order of framing the charges including the
prosecution sanction granted in the matter etc.
12. From the submissions made by the counsels
appearing for the accused petitioner, following issues have
been found to be raised:-
A. Whether complainant or a person at whose instance
the criminal case has been registered can issue the
prosecution sanction to prosecute a person who has been
made as an accused on the basis of the allegations made in
the letter/ complaint issued by that Authority?
B. Whether the prosecution sanction in the present
case on 06.10.2020 has been issued without due application
of mind by the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority as is
required before issuing the prosecution sanction?
C. Whether the permission from the Competent
Authority as required under Section 17A of the amended Act
of 2018 is sought for an inquiry to be conducted prior to
registration of the case, as the present case has been
registered as regards certain decisions/ recommendations
alleged to have been made by the present accused petitioner
and the Officer authorized i.e. the Joint Secretary,
Department of Home and if not then what would be the effect
on criminal proceedings?
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (19 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
D. The present criminal case is said to have been
lodged with the allegations that certain comments favouring
the delinquent police personnels have been forwarded by the
Home Department for the disposal of the review petitions to
be decided by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan and
those decisions/ recommendations/ comments are said to
have been signed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department
named; Miss Seema Singh but she has not been made as an
accused then the proceedings against other personnel can
proceed?
E. Whether there is cogent evidence of demand of
bribe from petitioner’s side or there is any evidence of
acceptance of bribe and further any kind or money or
documents have been recovered from the possession of the
accused petitioner or at his instance?
F. Whether during search of the house of the accused
petitioner, anything incriminating material is said to have
been seized which could connect the accused petitioner with
the alleged offences?
G. Whether the mobile number of the accused
petitioner was put on surveillance for a period of 201 days
without following the due process of law and what would be
its effect?
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (20 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
H. Whether there is no evidence on record so as to
connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences and
there is nothing incriminating on record which could led to
conviction of the accused petitioner to the said offences?
13. From the facts on record including the averments of
the FIR, it is borne out that a letter dated 04.02.2019 was
written by the then Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Rajasthan,
Shri Rajeeva Swarup to the ACB to the effect that some
personnels of the Department of Home Group-II in collusion
with the delinquent police personnels on receiving some
rewards from them are making comments favourable to such
delinquent police personnels for consideration of review
petitions filed by such delinquent police personnels under
Rule 34 of the CCA Rules. It is stated in the letter that the
said comments are written by the delinquent police
personnels and not by the employees of the Department of
Home Group-II and in doing so the prime role is of the
Section Officer Mr. Rakesh Kumar Meena (petitioner). For
verification of the said allegations, the CDR of the mobile
number of the accused petitioner was verified wherein it is
said to have been found that the petitioner is receiving undue
rewards from the delinquent police officers for favouring them
and thereafter the FIR No.252/2019 was registered at Police
Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau,
District ACB, Jaipur for the offences punishable under
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (21 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
sections 7, 7A and 8 of the amendment Act, 2018 and section
120B IPC was registered. During investigation, the residential
house of the accused petitioner was also searched. During the
intervening period the mobile number of the accused
petitioner was also put on surveillance and it is alleged that
there are details which speak of demand of undue rewards by
the accused petitioner for favouring the delinquent police
personnels.
14. After completion of the investigation, keeping the
investigation pending under section 173(8) CrPC for seeking
prosecution sanction, the charge-sheet was submitted before
the Competent Court against the accused petitioner for the
offences punishable under sections 7, 7A of the amendment
Act, 2018 and section 354 IPC. It is also revealed that for
seeking the prosecution sanction against the accused
petitioner, the proposals were sent to the Principal Secretary,
Department of Home on 17.10.2019.
15. The Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home,
Jaipur, vide order dated 06.10.2020 issued the prosecution
sanction against the accused petitioner which was submitted
before the Court concerned on 19.01.2021 and thereafter
final charge-sheet was submitted in the matter. In the final
charge-sheet, the ACB concluded as under:-
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (22 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
mDr izdj.k esa vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo x`g foHkkx “kklu
lfpoky; t;iqj ds i=kad i-2¼2½¼81½dk@d&3@f”kdk@19
fnukad 06-10-2019 ls vkjksih Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk dk
vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr izkIr gqbZ tks fnukad 19-01-2021 dk
ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh tk pqdh gSA
izdj.k ds vkjksih Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk ds ?kj dh [kkuk
ryk”kh esa feys lafnX/k nLrkost@cSadj pSd@izksiVhZ laca/kh
nLrkostkr ds lEca/k esa vuqla/kku ls ,sls dksbZ lk{; izkIr ugha
gq;s ftlls mDr izdj.k esa lfEefyr fd;s tk;s rFkk cSad pSd
o izkWiVhZ ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls vk; ls vf/kd laEifr dh tkap
dh tkosxhA
vuqla/kku ds nkSjku Jh eqjkjhyky] Jh dqynhi flag] Jh
ftrsUnz flag] Jh dkywjke ds c;ku 161 lhvkjihlh ls Li’V
gksrk gS fd fjO;q ;kfpdk ls lacaf/kr i=kofy;ka vkjksih Jh
jkds”k dqekj eh.kk }kjk la/kkfjr dh tkrh Fkh] ftlls Li’V
gksrk gS fd jkds”k dqekj eh.kk }kjk vius O;SfDrd gSfl;r dk
izHkko tekdj dk;Z djus ds fy, dgk tkrk Fkk rFkk
i=kofy;ksa esa fu;e fo:) tkdj O;fDrxr ykHk izkIr djus ds
fy, voS/k ikfjrks’k.k dh ekax djrk FkkA
vuqla/kku esa ik;k x;k fd funs”kd jkT; fof/k foKku
iz;ksx”kkyk t;iqj ds ia=kd 265@19 fnukad 18-11-2019 ls
ijh{k.k fjiksVZ e; iSu MªkbZo izkIr gqvk] ftldks Lora= xokgku
dh mifLFkr esa QnZ MkmuyksM ¼dkWih½ isu MªkbZo ekdZ ,Dl
rS;kj dj pkj lhfM;ka rS;kj dh xbZ Fkh] mDr ijh{k.k fjiksVZ esa
vkjksih dk vU; O;fDr;ksa ls OgkVlvi eSlst ij okrkZ djuk
ik;k x;k gS ftlesa vkjksih }kjk fjO;w ;kfpdkvksa ds laca/k esa
lwpuk;sa lk>k dh xbZ rFkk Lo;a dh O;SfDrd gSfl;r dk izHkko
fn[kk;k x;kA ftlls Li’V gksrk gS fd vkjksih Jh jkds”k dqekj
eh.kk x`g foHkkx vihy “kklu lfpoky; t;iqj esa i=kofy;ksa(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (23 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]dk la/kkfjr djrk Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ;ksa ls feydj muds i{k esa
dk;Z djokrk FkkA
izdj.k ds lEiw.kZ vuqla/kku c;kukr] ekSf[kd ,oa
nLrkosth lk{; rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ik;k tkrk gS fd
vkjksih Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk iq= Jh jkeizrki eh.kk] mez 38
lky] fuoklh ?kkVh lwjtiqjk] U;w VfeZuy Vkoj ds ikl] fl)kFkZ
uxj] ,&CykWd] t;iqj rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g xzqi&11]
“kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj }kjk nks’kh dkfeZd ls feyhHkxr djrs
gq, vius inh; drZO;ksa dh nq:i;ksx djrs gq, dbZ
vf/kdkjh@deZpkfj;ksa ls Lo;a ds fy;s ,oa vU; dkfeZdksa ds
fy;s voS/k ikfjrks’k.k dh ekax djus] vius in ,oa izkf/kdkj dk
vuqfpr iz;ksx djrs gq, vius ifjfprksa dks muds voS/k d`R;ksa
ds fy, iqfyl laj{k.k iznku djrs gq, muls fj”or ds :i esa
vU; lkexzh izkIr djus rFkk jktdk;Z esa ijs”kku fd;s tkus dk
Hk; fn[kk;k tkdj v/khuLFk efgykdfeZ;ksa dk “kkjhfjd “kks’k.k
dk izLrko o vuqjks/k fd;k tkus ,oa vU; efgykdfeZ;ksqa ds
fo:) vf”k’V fVIif.k;ka djuk ik;s tkus ls /kkjk 7] 7,
Hkz’Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la”kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 o 354 Hkkjrh;
naM lafgrk dk tqeZ izekf.kr gSA izdj.k esa vkjksih Jh jkds”k
dqekj eh.kk ds vykok ,df=r fd;s x;s lk{; ,oa nLrkostksa ls
vU; fdlh ds fo:) dksbZ vijk/k izekf.kr ugha ik;k tkdj
vuqla/kku fd;k tkuk “ks’k ugha gSA vr% vkjksih Jh jkds”k
dqekj eh.kk rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g xzqi&11 “kklu
lfpoky;] t;iqj ds fo:) yfEcr 173¼8½ lhvkjihlh dh
dk;Zokgh dks can dj vkjksih Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk iq= Jh
jkeizrki eh.kk] mez 38 lky] fuoklh ?kkVh lwjtiqjk] U;w
VfeZuy Vkoj ds ikl] fl)kFkZ uxj] ,&CykWd] t;iqj
rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g xzqi&11] “kklu lfpoky;]
t;iqj ds fo:) iw.kZ pktZ”khV izLrqr gSA(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (24 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]vr% Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk iq= Jh jkeizrki eh.kk] mez
38 lky] fuoklh ?kkVh lwjtiqjk] U;w VfeZuy Vkoj ds ikl]
fl)kFkZ uxj] ,&CykWd] t;iqj rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g
xzqi&11] “kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds fo:) pktZ”khV la[;k
234@2019 fnukad 06-12-2021 varxZr /kkjk 7] 7, Hkz’Vkpkj
fuokj.k ¼lalksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 o 354 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk
esa fdrk dh tkdj jkT; ljdkj dh foKfIr la[;k
,Q&14¼1½,e@57 esa iznRr “kfDr;ksa ds vuq”kj.k esa cgSfl;r
izHkkjh vf/kdkjh Jheku~ fo”ks’k U;k;k/kh”k] ls”ku U;k;ky;]
Hkz’Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] dze la- 01] t;iqj ds le{k is”k
dj fuosnu gS fd ckn lek;r lywd dkuwuh Qjekus dh d`ik
djsaA
16. When the matter was sent for approval of the
prosecution sanction against the accused petitioner, the Dy.
Secretary of the Department of Personnel made comments on
the file as under:-
61- vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ls fopkj&foe”kZ fd;k
x;kA funsZ”kkuqlkj izdj.k dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA izdj.k ls
lacaf/kr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ] ,lhch dh vuqla/kku fjiksVZ] okrkZvksa
dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV] vkjksih }kjk cpko esa izLrqr fd;s x;s
vH;kosnu ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k vU; nLrkostksa dk
ijh{k.k ,oa foospu fd;k x;k ftldk fo”ys’k.k fuEu izdkj gS
%&
izdj.k esa vkjksih vf/kdkjh ?kVuk ds le;
vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh] x`g ¼xzqi&11½ foHkkx] “kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj
ds in ij inLFkkfir FkkA vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] x`g foHkkx ds
v)Z”kkldh; i= fnukad 04-02-2019 }kjk ,lhch dks bl
vk”k; dh lwpuk nh xbZ fd lhlh, :Yl 34 ds rgr(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (25 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]vuq”kklfud vf/kdkjh }kjk nf.Mr vkSj vihyh; izkf/kdkjh ds
vkns”k ls O;fFkr nks’kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa }kjk jkT;iky egksn; ds
le{k iqufoZpkj ;kfpdk nkf[ky dh tkrh gS] ftl ij x`g
foHkkx dh fVIif.k;ka pkgh tkrh gSA x`g xzqi&11 foHkkx esa
dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa }kjk jktLFkku v/khuLFk iqfyl lsok ds nks’kh
iqfyl dkfeZdksa ls feyhHkxr dj muls ikfjrks’k.k izkIr dj
dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj ugha gksrs gq, Hkh nks’kh iqfyl dkfeZdksa ds i{k
esa fVIif.k;ka vafdr dh tkrh gSA bl Hkz’V d`R;ksa esa eq[;
Hkqfedk vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk }kjk fd;k
tkuk izdV gksrk gSA bl ij ,lhch }kjk dk;Zokgh djrs gq,
vkjksih ds eksckbZy Qksu dks lfoZykal ij fy;k tkdj xksiuh;
lR;kiu esa lwpuk ds rF;ksa dh iw.kZ:is.k iq’Vh gksus ij
vuqla/kku fd;k x;kA
izdj.k esa vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] x`g ds v-“kk- i=
fnukad 04-02-2019 ds vuqlkj ik;k x;k fd ,lhlh] x`g
foHkkx }kjk rRdkyhu lacaf/kr la;qDr “kklu lfpo o vkjksih
vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks vius d{k esa cqykdj nks’kh v/khuLFk iqfyl
vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk izLrqr iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij rF;ksa ls
foijhr fVIi.kh fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dqN izdj.kksa dk
mnkgj.k nsdj ,slh vuisf{kr fVIi.kh ugha fd;s tkus dh
fgnk;r nh xbZ ijUrq mlds ckotwn Hkh dqy 32 i=kofy;ksa esa
ls 20 i=kofy;ksa esa iwoZ esa fn;s x;s n.M dks de djrs gq,
ekSf[kd psrkouh fn;s tkus gsrq fVIi.kh vafdr dh xbZA izdj.k
esa leLr nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd
iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.k izkIr gksus ij lacaf/kr fyfid }kjk
i=koyh ij izLrqr fd;k tkrk FkkA izdj.kksa esa leLr rF;ksa dk
voyksdu ,oa lexz ijh{k.k djus ds i”pkr~ lacaf/kr la;qDr
“kklu lfpo }kjk fu.kZ;kRed fVIi.kh@izLrko fof”k’B “kklu
lfpo] x`g ds ek/;e ls ,lh,l] x`g dks vuqeksnukFkZ ,oa
vuqekspu i”pkr~ lfpo] jkT;iky egksn; dks vxzsf’kr fd;s
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (26 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
tkrs FksA i=koyh ij izLrqr fu.kZ;kFkZ izLrko la;qDr “kklu
lfpo }kjk gLrk{kfjr gS ftlesa vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dh
dksbZ izR;{k Hkwfedk izrhr ugha gksrh gS fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr
“kklu lfpo }kjk ,lhch dks nkSjkus vuqla/kku ntZ djk;s c;ku
esa iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa vihy vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s
n.Mkns”k dks de djus vFkok ;Fkkor j[kus gsrq vkjksih
vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks funsZf”kr dj uksV rS;kj djkus dk dFku
fd;k gSA bl izdkj iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa la;qDr “kklu
lfpo dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s tkus okys fu.kZ;kRed izLrko
rS;kj djus esa vkjksih vf/kdkjh dh vizR;{k ,oa lafdz; Hkwfedk
jgh gSA lkFk gh iquZfopkj izdj.kksa esa lacaf/kr vkjksih iqfyl
vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh ls ckj&ckj
nwjHkk’k@OgkVlvi ij lEidZ dj vius izdj.k ds laca/k esa
ppkZ dh tk jgh Fkh ftlls Hkh Li’V gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdk
izdj.kksa esa fu.kZ;kRed izLrko rS;kj fd;s tkus esa vkjksih dh
vizR;{k ijUrq egRoiw.kZ lfdz; Hkwfedk FkhA ;gka ;g Hkh
mYys[kuh; gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij fu.kZ;kRed
[email protected] izLrqr fd;s tkus dk nkf;Ro rRdkyhu la;qDr
“kklu lfpo dk gh Fkk fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr “kklu lfpo }
kjk mDr dk;Z vizR;{k :i ls vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh Jh jkds”k
dqekj eh.kk ls djok;k tkrk FkkA ftlls rRdkyhu la;qDr
“kklu lfpo dh jktdk;Z esa ykijokgh rS;kj fd;s x;s izLrkoksa
ij vkilh lgefr ,oa feyhHkxr dh laHkkouk ls Hkh bUdkj
ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
fj”or ekax ds laca/k esa vkjksih ds eksckbZy ls gqbZ okrkZvksa
dh QnZ VªkalfdIV ds vuqlkj vkjksih dks laHkor;k ,lhch
dk;Zokgh dk iwoZ vans”kk gks x;k Fkk ftlds dkj.k lacaf/kr
;kfpdkdrkZvksa o vU; ls og eksckbZy ij ysu&nsu dh ckrsa u
dj f}oFkhZ ckrsa gh djrk Fkk vkSj dk;Z ds laca/k esa feydj
ckr djus rFkk dk;Z djokus dk vk”oklu nsrk FkkA vkjksih }
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (27 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
kjk dk;Z dh ,sot esa fj”or jkf”k dh ekax QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls
Li’V ugha gS fdarq vuqfpr ikfjrks’k.k ds :i esa jsM pkbZu] ,lh
vkfn dh ekax fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA
izdj.k esa okrkZvksa dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k
gS fd vkjksih }kjk vuqfpr ikfjrks’k.k dh ,sot esa lacaf/kr
;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks i=koyh dh orZeku fLFkfr] izdj.k esa dh
tk jgh dk;Zokgh ,oa fVIi.kh ls lacaf/kr lwpuk ls voxr
djkrk Fkk tcfd iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh
dh xksiuh;rk cukbZ j[kh tkuh pkfg, Fkh] tks vkjksih
vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dk inh; drZO; ,oa nkf;Ro Hkh FkkA
izdj.k esa okrkZvksa dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k
gS fd vkjksih }kjk dk;kZy; esa vius v/khuLFk inLFkkfir
efgyk dkfeZdksa ls vius inh; izHkko dks fn[kkrs gq, mudks
dk;Z esa lg;ksx djus ds cnys muls v”kksHkuh; o v”yhy
okrkZ;sa djuk] mu ij viuk vf/kdkjh trkuk] vf”k’V fVIi.kh;ka
djuk ,oa mudh bPNk ds fo:) ;kSu laca/k ds fy, ncko
Mkydj vkeaf=r fd;s tkus dk vuqfpr vkijkf/kd dk;Z fd;k
x;k gSA bl izdkj lexz ijh{k.k ls ,lhch }kjk vkjksih Jh
jkds”k eh.kk ij yxk;s x;s leLr vkjksi izFke n`’V~;k izekf.kr
gksuk ik;s x;s gSA
62- vr% izdj.k esa izFke n`’V~;k vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s tkus
ls Hkz’Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 19 ,oa naM
izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 197 ds rgr iznRr “kfDr;ksa ds varxZr
Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk] rRdkyhu vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh ¼vihy½
x`g&11 “kklu lfpoky;] t;iqj ds fo:) vUrxZr /kkjk 7]
7, Hkz’Vkpkj fuokj.k ¼la”kksf/kr½ vf/kfu;e 2018 ,oa /kkjk 354
Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds Lohd`fr fn;s tkus ds fu.kZ;kFkZ izLrqr
gSA
17. The aforesaid comments were forwarded by the Dy.
Secretary for approval on 03.07.2020 which were then
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (28 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
recommended by the Principal Secretary, Department of
Personnel and sent to the Chief Secretary Shri Rajeeva
Swarup, on whose letter the present case has been registered
who assumed the charge of the Chief Secretary on that very
day i.e. 03.07.2020 and on the very same day, he approved
that prosecution sanction and may be given without there
being any discussion with the authorities and that too on the
day when he assumed the charge of the Chief Secretary and
it can be kept in mind that how much busy a person remains
in accepting the greetings, talking to the Officers on the date
he assumes the charge of the Chief Secretary and very
surprisingly on the very same day he gave approval for
prosecution sanction in the case of the petitioner and that too
in peculiar facts that it was at his instance i.e. the letter
dated 04.02.2019 on the basis of which the criminal case has
been registered. It is also pointed out during the course of
arguments that Shri Rajeeva Swarup, ACS (Home) was the
Officer who has granted permission to intercept the mobile
phone of the petitioner, meaning-thereby, the Officer who has
granted / approved the prosecution sanction is in a manner, is
the complainant and the complainant cannot be a judge of his
own. Mr. Rajeeva Swarup has issued a letter for inquiry and
registration of the case into the allegations made in the letter
dated 04.02.2019 and thereafter he himself has issued
permission for keeping in observation the mobile phone of the
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (29 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
accused petitioner and thereafter on receiving the proposals
for prosecution sanction from the ACB he had accorded the
prosecution sanction on 03.07.2020 on the very same day
when the said file was forwarded to his office through the
Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and accorded
his approval on the very same day when he assumed the
charge of the Chief Secretary.
18. Mr. Rajeeva Swarup, Addl. Chief Secretary (Home)
on 04.02.2019 wrote a letter to the D.G., ACB. The contents
of the said letter are as under:-
“Dear Mr. Tripathi,
I am extremely concerned about the working in Group XI of
Home Department and have every reason to believe that the
officials working in that Group are in connivance with the
delinquent police officials of the Rajasthan Subordinate Police
Services and, accordingly, are putting up files with notings in
favour of the police officials concerned on acceptance of
gratification.
Under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules, any official
punished by the Disciplinary Authority and aggrieved with the
orders of the Appellate Authority, may submit a Review
Petition before the Governor. In such cases the Governor’s
Secretariat seeks comments from the Administrative
Department, which form the basis of final decision. These
comments, in the case of Police office’s are dealt with in
Group XI of Home Department.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (30 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
In Subordinate Police Services, the Disciplinary Authority is
specified for each of the ranks, (Constable to Inspector),
which is District SP / Range IG concerned (and in some cases
the DGP) and the Appellate Authority is the next higher
official. The delinquent police official, in addition to the
grounds stated in the appeal, is also provided an opportunity
of personal hearing in the appeal, wherein he brings to notice
of the appellate authority the factual inconsistencies in the
punishment order issued by the Disciplinary Authority. It is
reasonable to expect that both the Disciplinary Authority, as
well as the Appellate Authority, being senior and responsible
officers, apply due mind and a speaking order is issued.
Accordingly, under normal circumstances, there remains little
possibility of the issues raised by the delinquent official in his
defense to remain unaddressed, first at the stage of the
initial isciplinary enquiry and then subsequently in appeal.
Hence, in Departmental examination, unless any major
factual inconsistency is evident in the order of the Appellate
Authority, the normal course of action in the Departmental
note should be to recommend rejection of the Petition.
I was surprised to receive files where in the bulk majority of
the cases the Group was recommending acceptance of the
Review Petition, and, in most cases, it was stated in the
comments to be sent to Raj Bhawan that the punishment be
changed to “unwritten warning”, even wherein “censure” had
been accorded, or even when the Appellate Authority had
reduced the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority. In one such case, the punishment had been
imposed by the DGP and upheld by the then ACS Home with
a detailed speaking order. And even in such case the lower
officials presumed they had more wisdom in finding both
orders faulty and lacking due application of mind! It is(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (31 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]pertinent to mention that “unwritten warning” is not
considered a punishment and, hence, does not affect the
service record or promotion.
In going over the files, I have observed that instead of
examining whether any new fact of factual inconsistency was
raised in the Review Petition which was not addressed earlier
in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority, reliance was more placed on the plea of the
delinquent police official. In many instances I also observed
that the manner of noting and explanation of technical facts
stated in the comments were as if written by the delinquent
police official concerned rather than the Group officials who
have little idea of police functioning and procedures at field
level.
How is it possible that the decisions of the Disciplinary
/Appellate Authorities in Police Department (all senior
officials) of the Police Department across the State, in the
bulk majority of the cases, are faulty?
I called the then Joint Secretary, Ms. Seema Singh and
verbally told her that I did not appreciate the manner of
examination and recommendation. Only in the exceptional
cases where factual inconsistency is established should the
Department recommend reduction / cancellation of the
punishment imposed. This was repeated at least 4 times, on
different occasions, and on two occasions, even the Section
Officer concerned, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Meena, was summoned
along with the then JS and my directions given verbally (in
one instance on file too). I had even gone to the extent of
indicating what implication their “sympathetic” comments
had.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (32 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Unfortunately, even my repeated directions have had no
effect. Ms. Seema Singh retired on Jan. 31st, 2019. It is most
surprising that just before her retirement she signed 32 such
files and sent, the recommendations in which are as follows:
29.01.1 30.01.19 31.01.19 Total
9
Rejection of 0 4 1 5
Petition (15.6%)Reduction of 0 3 3 6
punishment
Reject and 0 0 1 1
Remand
Change to 2 9 9 20
Verbal Warning (62.5%)
(unercorded)
Total 2 16 14 32What was the need to dispose of the files in such large
numbers just prior to relinquishing office, and against the
directions of the ACS home? Only in 15.6% cases were the
orders found appropriate.
I have been given to understand that the main role in this is
being played by the Section Officer, Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Meena.
In view of the reasons stated above, I would request you to
kindly put Shri Rakesh Kumar Meena, Section Officer, Group
XI, Home Department, under surveillance and take further
necessary action so that this racket of connivance with the
delinquent police officials is busted.”
19. From the contents of the aforesaid letter it is very
much clear that all the comments and recommendations were
signed by the then Joint Secretary, Department of Home Miss
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (33 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Seema Singh. It has also come on record that none of the
comments and recommendations alleged to be in favour of
alleged police personnels for consideration of their review
petitions filed under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, bears the
signatures of the petitioner. In the complaint/ letter dated
04.02.2019 the then Addl. Chief Secretary (Home) has clearly
stated that Miss Seema Singh has signed 32 such files and
sent the recommendations in favour of delinquent police
personnels. After investigation the police submitted the
charge-sheet against the accused petitioner with one of the
observation as under:-
izdj.k esa vkjksih Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk ds ?kj dh [kkuk
ryk”kh esa feys lafnX/k nLrkost@cSadj pSd@izksiVhZ laca/kh
nLrkostkr ds lEca/k esa vuqla/kku ls ,sls dksbZ lk{; izkIr ugha
gq;s ftlls mDr izdj.k esa lfEefyr fd;s tk;s rFkk cSad pSd
o izkWiVhZ ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls vk; ls vf/kd laEifr dh tkap
dh tkosxhA
20. The file as regards the issuance of the prosecution
sanction also bears certain comments / notings which clearly
speak as under:-
;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij
fu.kZ;kRed [email protected] izLrqr fd;s tkus dk nkf;Ro
rRdkyhu la;qDr “kklu lfpo dk gh Fkk fdarq rRdkyhu
la;qDr “kklu lfpo }kjk mDr dk;Z vizR;{k :i ls vkjksih
vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh Jh jkds”k dqekj eh.kk ls djok;k tkrk FkkA
ftlls rRdkyhu la;qDr “kklu lfpo dh jktdk;Z esa(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (34 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]ykijokgh rS;kj fd;s x;s izLrkoksa ij vkilh lgefr ,oa
feyhHkxr dh laHkkouk ls Hkh bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
21. The prosecution sanction has been granted vide
order dated 06.10.2020 after the approval of the then Chief
Secretary Mr. Rajeeva Swarup without due application of
mind. The prosecution sanction has been accorded against
the accused petitioner for prosecuting him for the offences
punishable under sections 7, 7A of the amendment Act of
2018 and section 354 IPC. The case has been lodged and the
charge-sheet has been filed as regards certain comments/
recommendations made by the Department of Home, said to
be in favour of delinquent police personnels for consideration
of their review petitions filed under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules.
22. The complaint/ letter dated 04.02.2019 written by
the person namely; Mr. Rajeeva Swarup has accorded the
prosecution sanction as stated in the letter that the
comments/ recommendations were sent by the then Joint
Secretary Miss Seema Singh, who has now retired and he has
found such 32 files of such a nature to which the accused
petitioner is said to be an accomplice.
23. On the basis of the material collected during
investigation, the Department of Personnel while proceeding
the file for prosecution sanction against the accused
petitioner also observed that it was the responsibility of the
Joint Secretary to make recommendations/ comments as
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (35 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]regards consideration of the review petitions filed by the
delinquent police personnels, however, the then Joint
Secretary (Home) was getting comments/ recommendations
prepared by the accused petitioner in collusion with her,
cannot be denied. Even after certain observations of the
Investigating Officer and the comments made on the file
during the time when the matter was processed for issuing
/approving the prosecution sanction against the petitioner,
the Authority did not care to consider the said aspects. It is
pertinent to mention here that the then Joint Secretary,
Department of Home Miss Seema Singh who is said to be the
signatory, responsible and accountable for the alleged
comments and recommendations, has not been made as an
accused in the present case. It has not come on record that
none of the recommendations / comments said to have been
made in favour of delinquent police personnels, bears the
signatures of the accused petitioner and more surprisingly
when the authority who has issued the prosecution sanction
in his letter dated 04.02.2019 on which the present criminal
case has been lodged, has stated that the comments/
recommendations seem to be written by the delinquent police
personnel concerned rather than the Group Officials. The
relevant para of comments/ recommendations dated
04.02.2019 is as under:-
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (36 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
“In going over the files, I have observed that
instead of examining whether any new fact of
factual inconsistency was raised in the Review
Petition which was not addressed earlier in the
orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority, reliance was more placed on
the plea of the delinquent police official. In many
instances I also observed that the manner of noting
and explanation of technical facts stated in the
comments were as if written by the delinquent
police official concerned rather than the Group
officials who have little idea of police functioning
and procedures at field level.”
24. The prosecution sanction has also been approved
and issued by the same person on whose letter / complaint
the case has been registered in a very hasty manner which is
clear from the facts that the DOP on 03.07.2020 after putting
their note forwarded the matter to the Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, who thereafter on the very same
day forwarded the same to the Chief Secretary for approval.
On the very same day i.e. on 03.07.2020 the Chief Secretary,
Rajasthan, Mr. Rajeeva Swarup accorded the approval for
prosecution sanction. It is pertinent to observe here that on
the very same day i.e. on 03.07.2020 Mr. Rajeeva Swarup
assumed the charge of the Chief Secretary and on the very
same day when a person assumes the charge of the Chief
Secretary, it can be said that he may have many assignments
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (37 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
other than the regular office works, he approved the
prosecution sanction. In such circumstances, issuing the
prosecution sanction in such a busy schedule on that
particular date speaks of the fact that he has not applied his
mind and various material aspects, as observed above, has
not been taken care of while approving the prosecution
sanction.
25. This Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar
Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal
Misc. (Petition) No.1220/2025) decided on 03.03.2025
has observed as under:-
“16. It is an obligatory duty of the Prosecution
Sanctioning Authority that on receiving the material
from the Investigating Officer for issuance of
prosecution sanction, he has to consider it and
undertake extensive scrutiny and thereafter pass
an order ascertaining whether the prosecution
sanction is to be issued or not.
17. The basic object behind seeking prosecution
sanction prior to taking cognizance against a public
servant/government servant is that as regards the
functioning of the department or office, no other
department shall unnecessarily interfere in the day
to day functioning of the department concerned
and also to ensure that the public servant is not
unnecessarily harassed by any other department or
agency since it is only the concerned department
where the public servant is employed, of whose
basic procedures of functioning the Sanctioning(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (38 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]Authority is aware of. So as to ensure that there
may not be unwarranted interference of any other
department in the internal functioning of a
department, the provision as regards the
prosecution sanction has been inserted and
therefore it was for the Prosecution Sanctioning
Authority to consider the material placed before it
by the Investigating Officer and to examine that
and pass appropriate order after making due
application of its mind.”
26. The observation and view of the Court is supported
by various Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court which are as
under:-
A. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal & one other connected matter (supra),
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 13, 14, 15 and 16
has observed as under:-
“13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at
the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by
the competent authority, adequate material for such
grant was made available to the said authority. This
may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it
is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and
circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the
sanction order. However, in every individual case, the
court has to find out whether there has been an
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority concerned on the material placed before it. It
is so necessary for the reason that there is an
obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (39 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full
knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of
sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the
provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed
with complete strictness keeping in mind the public
interest and the protection available to the accused
against whom the sanction is sought.
14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar
for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious
exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords
protection to the government servant against frivolous
prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage
vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the
innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.
15. Consideration of the material implies application of
mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie
disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered
the evidence and other material placed before it. In
every individual case, the prosecution has to establish
and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those
facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and
the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the
sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant
material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery
memos, draft charge-sheet and other materials on
record were placed before the sanctioning authority and
if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction
order that the sanctioning authority perused all the
material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction
had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes
necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of
the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (40 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]order suffers from the vice of total non-application of
mind. (Vide Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. R.
[(1947-48) 75 IA 30: (1948) 61 LW 257: AIR 1948 PC
82]; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC
124: 1958 Cri LJ 265], Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of
A.P. [(1979) 4 SCC 172: 1979 SCC (Cri) 926], State v.
Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani [(1996) 4 SCC
472: 1996 SCC (Cri) 755], State of Punjab v. Mohd.
Iqbal Bhatti [(2009) 17 SCC 92: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
949], Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State [(2011) 6 SCC
1: (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 782] and State of Maharashtra v.
Mahesh G. Jain [(2013) 8 SCC 119: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri)
515: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 85].)
16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be
summarised as under:
16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant
record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR,
disclosure statements, statements of witnesses,
recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other
relevant material. The record so sent should also
contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt
the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of
which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and
conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by
the prosecution independently applying its mind and
taking into consideration all the relevant facts before
grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or
withhold the sanction.
16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised
strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (41 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]protection available to the accused against whom the
sanction is sought.
16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that
the authority had been aware of all relevant
facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the
relevant material.
16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to
establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that
the entire relevant facts had been placed before the
sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its
mind on the same and that the sanction had been
granted in accordance with law.”
B. State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in
paras 9 and 10 has observed as under:-
“9. We agree that an order of sanction should not be
construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well
settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction
is required to be passed should always be borne in
mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best
person to judge as to whether the public servant
concerned should receive the protection under the Act
by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or
not.
10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably,
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority is imperative. The order granting sanction
must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been
proper application of mind on the part of the
sanctioning authority. We have noticed hereinbefore
that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (42 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report
made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta. Even the said report has not been brought
on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in
the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant
documents, IG Police, Karnataka Lokayukta had placed
on record the materials collected on investigation of
the matter which would prima facie establish existence
of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence
by the public servant concerned is not evident.
Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the
entire records containing the materials collected
against the accused should be placed before the
sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of
sanction does not indicate application of mind as (sic
to) the materials placed before the said authority
before the order of sanction was passed, the same
may be produced before the court to show that such
materials had in fact been produced.”
C. Harish Chandra Bunkar Balai Vs. Board of
Revenue, Ajmer & Ors., (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ
No.707/2023), decided on 18.10.2024, wherein the
Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, has observed
in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under:-
“10. A bare perusal of the above draft prosecution (as
placed on record of the present appeal along with
additional affidavit) and the order dated 28th January
2015 makes it clear that the order granting
prosecution sanction is a verbatim repetition of the
draft prosecution as furnished by the ACB to the
Collector, Banswara.
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (43 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
11. The order dated 28th January 2015 does not
reflect any ground on the basis of which it can be
concluded that the sanctioning authority applied his
independent mind before granting the prosecution
sanction. In Babu Lal Vishnoi’s case (supra), a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon Subhash
Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.590 of 2010, wherein it was observed as under:
“The authority competent to remove a public servant
from service is clothed with the power to grant
sanction for prosecution to such public servant by the
Legislature with [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (10 of 12)
[SAW-707/2023] a definite intention as that authority
being having administrative and disciplinary control on
the person concerned is in a position to assess and
weigh the accusation on basis of intimate knowledge
of the work and conduct and also having day to day
knowledge of overall administrative interest of the
department.
The sanction for prosecution represent a deliberate
decision and that requires objective satisfaction of the
competent authority about a prima facie case against
the person facing accusation. The authority competent
while granting sanction is also required to record
reasons for launching prosecution and is further
required to specify its need in public interest. This
important duty can be discharged only on independent
application of mind to all the relevant facts on basis of
which prosecution is proposed.
If any extraneous pressure is mounted on the
authority competent then there shall be all chances of
frivolous and malicious prosecution. To maintain the
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (44 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]spirit of the provisions for the grant of sanction to
prosecute a public servant, the authority competent is
required to act independently, objectively and with an
intention for not saving a culprit from prosecution but
at the same time with a view to afford a reasonable
protection to a public servant from unnecessary
harassment and undue hardship through vexatious
prosecution.
Keeping in mind, the above mentioned intention of the
Legislature, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (supra) authoritatively held
that the order granting sanction must be
demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority. For the same reason, this Court too in the
case of Kishan Lal (supra) held that the statutory
power given to the authority competent is required to
be exercised by the authority concerned and not by
any body else.”
12. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012, it was held
as under :
“As already stated, in the instant matter too the
sanction granted and the draft to grant sanction are
ad verbatim same. The Director, Mines and Geology
appears to have [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (11 of 12)
[SAW-707/2023] adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section
19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absolute authority to
grant sanction for prosecution to the competent
authority, as such, the competent authority is
required to apply its own mind by considering all
relevant facts. The competent authority may avail
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (45 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]assistance of other persons, but in no case, any other
authority can initiate the process of consideration for
grant of sanction and instruct the competent
authority for granting sanction. In the case in hand,
the consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of
fact, was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by
sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution.
The Anti Corruption Bureau could have communicated
all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution
sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the
Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecution
sanction under a proposed and drafted document.
The prosecution sanction granted in the instant
matter by the Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur
under the letter dated 18.10.2012 on face depicts
non- application of mind and abdication of the powers
by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore,
is illegal.”
13. Applying the ratio of the above judgments to the
present case, we hold that the proposed draft
document for grant of prosecution sanction furnished
by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the sanctioning
authority cannot be upheld in terms of Manish Mathur
and is therefore declared illegal.”
D. Vijay Kumar Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.5351/2023)
decided on 07.10.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench of
this Court has observed as under:-
“It is an admitted position that for procuring the drug license
and cancellation of drug license, online procedure was
prevailing at that time because department had started
online process from September, 2017. Complainant very well(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (46 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]knew the online process. He had applied for cancellation of
drug license online. So, there was no need to prepare the file
offline. Investigating Authorities had not conducted the
verification of illegal demand in accordance with law and had
not conducted any enquiry as to whether any work was
pending with the petitioner or not. It is also an admitted
position that at the time of trap proceedings, no work was
pending with the petitioner from 17.12.2018 to 19.12.2018.
Complainant first time applied for the drug license on
24.12.2018. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation
before the concerned authorities. Concerned authorities also
admitted the fact that no work was pending with the
petitioner. Petitioner had clearly stated that complainant had
forcefully put the tainted money in his pocket on account of
rivalry of the petitioner with Ranjeet Gurjar. Department had
also admitted the rivalry of the petitioner with [2024:RJ-
JP:41711] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-5351/2023] Ranjeet Gurjar.
Ranjeet Gurjar is the friend of the complainant Kuldeep
Singh. In the present case, prosecution failed to establish
that there was any demand and acceptance of the bribe.
Mere recovery of tainted money does not attract the offence
against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the
Act of 1988 because prosecution had to establish the fact
that work was pending with the petitioner and petitioner had
demanded the tainted money for doing work. Competent
authority before granting the prosecution sanction had not
applied independent mind. So, I deem it fit to quash and set
aside the order of the prosecution sanction dated 23.06.2021
issued against the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (A-3),
Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.”
27. The third issue raised is that no permission under
section 17A of the amendment Act, 2018 for enquiry or
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (47 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
inquiry or investigation of offence relatable to the
recommendation made or decision taken by such public
servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, was
taken from the Competent Authority and if same has not
been taken that would be the effect of the same on the
criminal proceedings.
28. Section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018
provides for enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offence
relatable to the recommendation made or decision taken by
such public servant in discharge of his official functions or
duties. Section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018 reads as
under:-
“17-A. Enquiry or inquiry or investigation
of offences relatable to recommendations
made or decision taken by public servant
in discharge of official functions or duties.
— No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or
inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged
to have been committed by a public servant
under this Act, where the alleged offence is
relatable to any recommendation made or
decision taken by such public servant in
discharge of his official functions or duties,
without the previous approval–
(a) in the case of a person who is or
was employed, at the time when the
offence was alleged to have been
committed, in connection with the(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (48 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]affairs of the Union, of that
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or
was employed, at the time when the
offence was alleged to have been
committed, in connection with the
affairs of a State, of that
Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of
the authority competent to remove
him from his office, at the time when
the offence was alleged to have been
committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be
necessary for cases involving arrest of a person
on the spot on the charge of accepting or
attempting to accept any undue advantage for
himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned
authority shall convey its decision under this
section within a period of three months, which
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by
such authority, be extended by a further period
of one month.”
29. Present case is the case where the Addl. Chief
Secretary, Department of Home wrote a letter dated
04.02.2019 to the ACB that the personnels of the Home
Department Group-II in collusion with and on receiving the
illegal gratification from the delinquent police personnels
whose review petitions filed under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules
are pending for adjudication, have made recommendations
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (49 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
favouring them. It is also alleged in the said letter that on
looking to the comments and recommendations it seems that
they are being written by the delinquent police personnels
themselves and not by the employees of the Department of
Home. In the said letter it has also been stated that as many
as 32 files have been traced out where there are favourable
recommendations to the Police Personnels and are signed by
the then Joint Secretary, Home, Miss Seema Singh.
30. The beginning words of section 17A of the
amendment Act of 2018 says that no police officer shall
conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any
offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant
under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any
recommendation made or decision taken by such public
servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without
the previous approval of the concerned authorities as
mentioned in the said section. In the present case, from the
bare contents of the complaint/ letter dated 04.02.2019 and
the conclusion of the charge-sheet clearly speaks that the
case has been registered against the petitioner and the
charge-sheet has been submitted for the allegations of
making illegal recommendations/ comments favouring the
delinquent police personnels in collusion with them. The facts
clearly speak that the alleged offences are relatable to the
recommendations /comments made by the Personnels of the
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (50 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Home Department Group-II but there is nothing on the
record that before registering the case and making
investigation any such permission was sought. Now this Court
has to see that if the criminal proceedings have been initiated
and the charge-sheet has been filed as regards the offences
relatable to the recommendations / comments alleged to
have been made by the petitioner who is a public servant
without seeking any previous approval from the concerned
authority for such investigation.
31. The language of section 17A of the amendment Act
of 2018 mandates that the prior approval is a must for
commencing investigation into the offences relatable to any
recommendation. If no such previous approval is sought as
mandated under section 17A of the amendment Act of 2018
then the whole proceedings shall stand vitiated. The aforesaid
view is supported by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC
338, the relevant paragraphs of the same are quoted as
under:-
“117. In terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is
permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or
conduct investigation into any offence done by a
public servant where the offence alleged is
relatable to any recommendation made or decision
taken by the public servant in discharge of his
public functions without previous approval, inter
alia, of the authority competent to remove the(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (51 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]public servant from his office at the time when the
offence was alleged to have been committed. In
respect of the public servant, who is involved in
this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable.
Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there
could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation.
It is in this context apposite to notice that the
complaint, which has been filed by the petitioners
in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, moved
before the first respondent CBI, is done after
Section 17-A was inserted. The complaint is dated
4-10-2018. Para 5 sets out the relief which is
sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR
under various provisions. Paras 6 and 7 of the
complaint are relevant in the context of Section 17-
A, which read as follows:
“6. We are also aware that recently, Section
17-A of the Act has been brought in by way of
an amendment to introduce the requirement
of prior permission of the Government for
investigation or inquiry under the Prevention
of Corruption Act.
7. We are also aware that this will place you
in the peculiar situation, of having to ask the
accused himself, for permission to investigate
a case against him. We realise that your
hands are tied in this matter, but we request
you to at least take the first step, of seeking
permission of the Government under Section
17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for
investigating this offence and under which,
“the concerned authority shall convey its
decision under this section within a period of(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (52 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]three months, which may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing by such authority, be
extended by a further period of one month”.
(emphasis supplied)
118. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the
complaint fully knowing that Section 17-A
constituted a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or
investigation unless there was previous approval.
In fact, a request is made to at least take the first
step of seeking permission under Section 17-A of
the 2018 Act. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of
2018 was filed on 24-10-2018 and the complaint is
based on non-registration of the FIR. There is no
challenge to Section 17-A. Under the law, as it
stood, both on the date of filing the petition and
even as of today, Section 17-A continues to be on
the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any
inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners
themselves, in the complaint, request to seek
approval in terms of Section 17-A but when it
comes to the relief sought in the writ petition, there
was no relief claimed in this behalf.”
Following the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
Yashwant Sinha judgement, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court at Jodhpur in the case of Ranidan Singh and others
v. State of Rajasthan and others (2024:RJ-JD:41050),
has opined on similar lines, the relevant paragraphs have
been provided hereinunder:
“25. Therefore, before initiating investigation
against petitioners under the provisions of the P.C.
Act, prior approval of the Government was a sine-
qua-non and the F.I.R. could not have been(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (53 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]registered without such approval. As the petitioners
cannot be prosecuted in the matter without prior
approval of the Government, therefore, registration
of the FIR by the Anti- Corruption Bureau against
the petitioners is totally illegal and amounts to a
gross abuse of process of law.
27. Instant matter is squarely covered by the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Yashwant Sinha (supra) and the decision of
this Court in the case of Himanshu Yadav (supra), on
which the learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance. Facts of the present case are
clearly similar to those in the above-referred cases.
28. The principle put forward by the respondents in
the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) is not found to be of
any assistance to them, as in that case public servant
Naresh Meena, was caught on the spot red-handed,
while accepting gratification. As discussed earlier,
prior approval is not required in cases of on-the-
spot arrest matters under the P.C. Act, for which
there is a clear exception in Section 17A of the Act.
The main question in the case of CBI vs. Santosh Karnani
(supra) was whether the petitioner was entitled
[2024:RJ-JD:41050] (13 of 13) [CRLMP-
1219/2022] to benefit of anticipatory bail in an
offence under the P.C. Act. No observation was
made in that judgment regarding the principle
enunciated by the three-judge bench in Yashwant
Sinha‘s (supra) case. In fact, that principle was
neither referred to nor discussed.The principle
propounded by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case
of Devender Kumar (supra) predates the principle laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashwant
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (54 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Sinha‘s case. In the context of the present dispute,
the principle established in Yashwant Sinha‘s case
is fully applicable, as Hon’ble the Supreme Court
has clarified the position regarding the matter at
hand.
29. As such, lodging of FIR against the petitioners
without the approval of the competent authority is
void ab initio. According to this Court,
investigations is proscribed sans prior approval of
the competent authority. Therefore, provision of
section 17A of the Act of 1988 would create a road
block in the way of the investigating officer to
proceed further.”
32. The another issue raised is whether there is any
sufficient material or evidence available on the record so as
to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged offences of
making recommendations/ comments in conspiracy with the
delinquent police personnels so as to favour them in disposal
of the review petitions in their favour.
33. In the complaint/ letter dated 04.02.2019 itself the
then Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Home, who lateron
granted prosecution sanction against the petitioner being the
Chief Secretary of the Rajasthan has stated that the
recommendations are signed by the then Joint Secretary,
Department of Home named Miss Seema Singh and the
allegations against the accused petitioner are that he had
played a pivotal role in making such recommendations/
comments. There is nothing on the record that any of the
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (55 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
alleged recommendations/ comments are signed by the
accused petitioner. As per the Administrative procedure of
department all such recommendations are signed and
forwarded by the Joint Secretary. The other staff of the
Department is only for the assistance of the Joint Secretary.
The Joint Secretary, Department of Home is the final Signing
Authority to approve the recommendations/ comments which
are alleged to be made in collusion with the delinquent police
personnels to favour them. The order of the prosecution
sanction dated 6.10.2020 also speaks that the proposals
submitted on record for decision were signed by the Joint
Secretary and the accused petitioner is said to have been
found involved in an indirect manner. The observations made
in the prosecution sanction order are as under:-
“Ikzdj.k esa vfrfjDr eq[; lfpo] x`g ds v-“kk- i=
fnukad 04-02-2019 ds vuqlkj ik;k x;k fd ,lhlh] x`g
foHkkx }kjk rRdkyhu lacaf/kr] la;qDr “kklu lfpo o
vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks vius d{k esa cqykdj nks’kh
v/khuLFk iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk izLrqr iquZfopkj
;kfpdkvksa ij rF;ksa ls foijhr fVIi.kh fd;s tkus ds
laca/k esa dqN izdj.kksa dk mnkgj.k nsdj ,slh vuisf{kr
fVIi.kh ugha fd;s tkus dh fgnk;r nh xbZ ijUrq mlds
ckotwn Hkh dqy 32 i=kofy;ksa esa ls 20 i=kofy;ksa esa iwoZ
esa fn;s x;s n.M dks de djrs gq, ekSf[kd psrkouh fn;s
tkus gsrq fVIi.kh vafdr dh xbZA izdj.k esa leLr
nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh ik;k x;k gS fd
iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.k izkIr gksus ij lacaf/kr(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (56 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]fyfid }kjk i=koyh ij izLrqr fd;k tkrk FkkA izdj.kksa
esa leLr rF;ksa dk voyksdu ,oa lexz ijh{k.k djus ds
i”pkr~ lacaf/kr la;qDr “kklu lfpo }kjk fu.kZ;kRed
fVIi.kh@izLrko fof”k’B “kklu lfpo] x`g ds ek/;e
ls ,lh,l] x`g dks vuqeksnukFkZ ,oa vuqeksnu i”pkr~
lfpo] jkT;iky egksn; dks vxzsf’kr fd;s tkrs FksA
i=koyh ij izLrqr fu.kZ;kFkZ izLrko la;qDr “kklu
lfpo }kjk gLrk{kfjr gS ftlesa vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh
dh dksbZ izR;{k Hkwfedk izrhr ugha gksrh gS fdarq rRdkyhu
la;qDr “kklu lfpo }kjk ,lhch dks nkSjkus vuqla/kku
ntZ djk;s c;ku esa iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa vihy
vf/kdkj }kjk fn;s x;s n.Mkns”k dks de djus vFkok
;Fkkor j[kus gsrq vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh dks funsZf”kr
dj uksV rS;kj djkus dk dFku fd;k gSA bl izdkj
iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa la;qDr “kklu lfpo dh
vksj ls izLrqr fd;s tkus okys fu.kZ;kRed izLrko rS;kj
djus esa vkjksih vf/kdkjh dh vizR;{k ,oa lafdz; Hkwfedk
jgh gSA lkFk gh iquZfopkj izdj.kksa esa lacaf/kr vkjksih
iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh ls
ckj&ckj nwjHkk’k@OgkV~lvi ij laidZ dj vius
izdj.k ds laca/k esa ppkZ dh tk jgh Fkh ftlls Hkh Li’V
gS fd iquZfopkj ;kfpdk izdj.kksa esa fu.kZ;kRed izLrko
rS;kj fd;s tkus esa vkjksih dh vizR;{k ijarq egRoiw.kZ
lafdz; Hkwfedk FkhA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd
iquZfopkj ;kfpdkvksa ij fu.kZ;kRed [email protected]
izLrqr fd;s tkus dk nkf;Ro rRdkyhu la;qDr “kklu
lfpo dk gh Fkk fdarq rRdkyhu la;qDr “kklu lfpo }
kjk mDr dk;Z vizR;{k :i ls vkjksih vuqHkkxkf/kdkjh Jh
jkds”k dqekj eh.kk ls djok;k tkrk Fkk ftlls rRdkyhu
la;qDr “kklu lfpo dh jktdk;Z esa ykijokgh rS;kj
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (57 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]fd;s x;s izLrkoksa ij vkilh lgefr ,oa feyhHkxr dh
laHkkouk ls Hkh bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
fj”or ekax ds laca/k esa vkjksih ds eksckby ls gqbZ okrkZvksa
dh QnZ VªkalfdzIV ds vuqlkj vkjksih dks laHkor;k ,lhch
dk;Zokgh dk iwoZ vans”kk gks x;k Fkk ftlds dkj.k
lacaf/kr ;kfpdkdrkZvksa o vU; ls og eksckbZy ij
ysu&nsu dh ckrsa u dj f}vFkhZ ckrsa gh djrk Fkk vkSj
dk;Z ds laca/k esa feydj ckr djus rFkk dk;Z djokus
dk vk”oklu nsrk FkkA vkjksih }kjk dk;Z dh ,sot esa
fj”or jkf”k dh ekax QnZ VªkalfdzIV ls Li’V ugha gS fdarq
vuqfpr ikfjrks’k.k ds :i esa jsM okbZu] ,lh vkfn dh
ekax fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA”
34. The said observations in the prosecution order also
speaks that the alleged transcript of the conversion also, does
not disclose the fact of demand of gratification. It is also
necessary to take note of the fact that even though there is a
conclusion of the investigation and the observations of the
Prosecution Sanctioning Authority that the alleged
recommendations/ comments were signed by the then Joint
Secretary, Department of Home named Miss Seema Singh but
she has not been made an accused. Once the prime Officer
who signs the recommendations and comments has not been
made as an accused then criminal proceedings against
assisting staff who has not even signed the said comments in
opinion of the Court is wholly unjustified and arbitrary and
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (58 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
such proceedings against the assisting staff deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
35. As per the investigation report, nothing
incriminating material or documents have been seized from
the house of the accused petitioner during the search, which
could connect the accused petitioner with the alleged
offences.
36. The another issue which has been raised is that
putting the mobile phone of the accused petitioner on
observation is violative of the provisions of law i.e. section
5(2) of the Act of 1885 and the rules made thereunder, which
is quoted as under:-
“5. Power for Government to take possession
of licensed telegraphs and to order
interception of messages.–(1) On the
occurrence of any public emergency, or in the
interest of the public safety, the Central
Government or a State Government or any officer
specially authorised in this behalf by the Central
Government or a State Government may, if
satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do,
take temporary possession (for so long as the
public emergency exists or the interest of the
public safety requires the taking of such action) of
any telegraph established, maintained or worked
by any person licensed und er this Act.
(2) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or
in the interest of the public safety, the Central
Government or a State Government or any officer(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (59 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]specially authorised in this behalf by the Central
Government or a State Government may, if
satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do
in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States or public order or for
preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by
order, direct that any message or class of
messages to or from any person or class of
persons, or relating to any particular subject,
brought for transmission by or transmitted or
received by any telegraph, shall not be
transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or
shall be disclosed to the Government making the
order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order:
Provided that press messages intended to be
published in India of correspondents accredited to
the Central Government or a State Government
shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their
transmission has been prohibited under this sub-
section.”
37. The Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal
Appellate Jurisdiction in the case of Vinit Kumar (supra)
has observed in paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 39 and 40 as under:-
“16. We are of the view that as per Section 5(2) of
the Act, an order for interception can be issued on
either the occurrence of any public emergency or in
the interest of the public safety. The impugned
three interception orders were issued allegedly for
the reason of ‘public safety’. As held in PUCL(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (60 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022](supra), unless a public emergency has occurred or
the interest of public safety demands, the
authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the
powers under the said section. The expression
“Public Safety” as held in PUCL (supra) means the
state or condition of freedom from danger or risk
for the people at large. When either of two
conditions are not in existence, it was
impermissible to take resort to telephone tapping.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in PUCL case
(supra) has observed that neither the occurrence of
public emergency nor the interest of public safety
are secretive conditions or situations. Either of the
situations would be apparent to the reasonable
person.
18. Even at this stage, from the affidavits filed by
the Respondents or the charge-sheet, the
Respondents could not justify any ingredients of
risk to the people at large or interest of the public
safety, for having taken resort to the telephonic
tapping by invading the right to privacy. Neither
from the wp-2367 of 19(J).doc impugned orders
nor from the record any situation showing interest
of public safety is borne out.
19. We are satisfied that in peculiar fact of the
instant case, the impugned three interception
orders neither have sanction of law nor issued for
legitimate aim, as sought to be suggested. The
impugned three interception orders could not
satisfy the test of “Principles of proportionality and
legitimacy” as laid down by the nine judges’
constitution bench decision in K. T. Puttaswamy (supra).
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (61 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that all
three impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, we quash and set aside the same.
39. We may also add here that if the directions of
the Apex Court in PUCL’case (supra) which are now
re-enforced and approved by the Apex Court in K.
T. Puttaswamy (supra) as also the mandatory rules
in regard to the illegally intercepted messages
pursuant to an order having no sanction of law, are
permitted to be flouted, we may be breeding
contempt for law, that too in matters involving
infraction of fundamental right of privacy
under Article 21 the Constitution of India. To
declare that dehorse the fundamental rights, in the
administration of criminal law, the ends would
justify the means would amount to declaring the
Government authorities may violate any directions
of the wp-2367 of 19(J).doc Supreme Court or
mandatory statutory rules in order to secure
evidence against the citizens. It would lead to
manifest arbitrariness and would promote the scant
regard to the procedure and fundamental rights of
the citizens, and law laid down by the Apex Court.
40. We, therefore, quash and set aside three
interception orders dated 29th October, 2009, 18th
December, 2009 and 24th February, 2010 and
consequently direct the destruction of copies of
intercepted messages/ recordings. The intercepted
messages/ recordings stand eschewed from the
consideration of trial Court. The Petitioner is at
liberty to adopt the remedy available in law for the
other reliefs sought in the writ petition.”
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (62 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
38. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India & Ors.
(Writ Petition No. 2754 of 2006) decided on
11.12.2006 has also considered this issue in the light of
various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and observed in
paras 11, 21, 34 and 35 as under:-
“11. It would be relevant to extract the following
excerpts from the above decision of the Supreme
Court with regard to exercise of power
under Section 5(2) of the Act.
“Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of
messages in accordance with the provisions of the
said section. Occurrence of any public emergency or
in the interest of public safety are the sine qua non
for the application of the provisions of Section
5(2) of the Act. Unless a public emergency has
occurred or the interest of public safety demands,
the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the
powers under the said section. Public emergency
would mean the prevailing of a sudden condition or
state of affairs affecting the people at large calling
for immediate action. The expression public safety
means the state or condition of freedom from
danger or risk for the people at large. When either
of these two conditions are not in existence, the
Central Government or a State Government or the
authorised officer cannot resort to telephone-
tapping even though there is satisfaction that it is
necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of
sovereignty and integrity of India etc. In other
words, even if the Central Government is satisfied(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (63 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the
interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or
the security of the State or friendly relations with
sovereign States or public order or for preventing
incitement to the commission of an offence, it
cannot intercept the messages or resort to
telephone-tapping unless a public emergency has
occurred or the interest of public safety or the
existence of the interest of public safety requires.
Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor the
interest of public safety are secretive conditions or
situations. Either of the situations would be
apparent to a reasonable person.
The first step under Section 5(2) of the Act,
therefore, is the occurrence of any public
emergency or the existence of a public safety
interest. Thereafter the competent authority
under Section 5(2) of the Act is empowered to pass
an order of interception after recording its
satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to
do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of
India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly
relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v)
for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence. When any of the five situations mentioned
above to the satisfaction of the competent authority
require then the said authority may pass the order
for interception of messages by recording reasons
in writing for doing so.”
21. As held by the Supreme Court in People’s Union
For Civil Liberties’S case AIR 1997 Supreme Court
568 (supra) the competent authority under Section
5(2) of the Act is empowered to pass an order of
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (64 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
interception only on the occurrence of any public
emergency or in the interest of public safety which
are held to be sine qua non for the application of
the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the
Act.
34. As noted above, Section 5(2) of the Act is
aimed at preventing indiscriminate telephone-
tapping so as to protect the right to privacy of a
person and the object of enacting Rule 419-A of the
Rules is to rule out arbitrariness in the exercise of
power under Section 5(2) of the Act. The Supreme
Court in People’s Union For Civil Liberties‘s case AIR
1997 Supreme Court 568 (supra) while expressing
displeasure as to the inaction on the part of the
Central Government in making Rules prescribing
the procedure to be followed for interception of
messages under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the
Act laid down certain procedural safeguards which
have been adopted in toto while inserting Rule 419-
A of the Rules.
35. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the
said Rules as declared in People’s Union For Civil
Liberties‘s case AIR 1997 Supreme Court 568
(supra) and particularly since the violation of the
said provisions would result in infraction of right to
privacy of an individual which is a part of the right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, I am of the opinion that Rule 419-A though
procedural in nature is mandatory and the non-
compliance of the same would vitiate the entire
proceedings.”
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (65 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
39. The provisions of the Act of 1985 and the
judgements, referred to above, clearly speak that the mobile
number of a person can be put on observation only when the
authority feels that there is likelihood of affect to the public
safety. The Director General of ACB, Rajasthan, vide letter
dated 05.02.2019 written to the Addl. Chief Secretary
(Home), Government of Rajasthan, required to grant
permission and ordered for transferring of voice, video, GPRS
and data calls of the petitioner’s mobile number for a period
of sixty days from the date of beginning of interception under
the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act of
1885 in the interest of the public safety. The Addl. Chief
Secretary Home, Mr. Rajeeva Swarup at whose instance the
case has been registered without looking to this fact that
there is no danger to the public safety by the accused
petitioner, has granted the permission vide order dated
05.02.2019 as prayed by the ACB for a period of sixty days,
however, that period was lateron extended from time to time
for a total period of 201 days. No approval as required under
the Rules has been sought.
40. The allegations and the reasons for seeking
permission to intercept the mobile number of the accused
petitioner in no manner is danger to the public safety. There
is nothing on the record that how the public safety would be
effected or was being effected by the accused petitioner. In
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (66 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
view of the fact of lacking any such evidence which could led
to the fact that any action of the accused petitioner would
have been danger to the public safety. Then in such
circumstances, granting permission for interception of the
mobile of the accused petitioner, in no manner can be said to
be justified and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
41. In such circumstances, in the case of Vinit Kumar
(supra), the High Court of Bombay has set aside the order of
interception and consequently directed for destruction of
copies of intercepted messages/ recordings and the same
were ordered to stand eschewed from the consideration of
the trial court.
42. Taking into consideration the facts of the present
case and the observations made in the case of Vinit Kumar
(supra) and Smt. K.L.D. Nagasree (supra), this Court
also deems just and proper to set aside the order dated
05.02.2019 and the subsequent orders as regards keeping
the mobile number of the accused petitioner under
observation and the recordings and the messages and also
directs destruction of copies of intercepted messages/
recordings and the same stand eschewed from consideration
for any purpose.
43. As regards the allegation of offence under section
354 IPC, the court has gone through the affidavits of Smt.
Rajbala, Pramila Kumari, Smt. Mamta Sharma and Smt. Pooja
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (67 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
Kanwar, which are placed on record. Considering the contents
of the aforesaid affidavits, the Court is of the opinion that
there is no sufficient material to prosecute the accused
petitioner for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC.
44. In view of the discussion made above, the criminal
misc. Petition No. 6395/2022 and so also the Criminal
Writ Petition No.22/2022 filed by the accused petitioner, are
allowed as under:-
A. The impugned prosecution sanction order dated
06.10.2020 (Annex.2 in the criminal writ petition
No.22/2022) is quashed and set aside with all consequential
effects.
B. The Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction also
set asides the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Addl.
Chief Secretary Home as regards putting the mobile number
of the accused petitioner under observation for a period of
sixty days and further orders for extending of the said period
and consequently direct destruction of copies of intercepted
messages/ recordings and the said intercepted messages /
recordings stand eschewed from consideration against the
accused petitioner.
C. The criminal proceedings of FIR No. 252/2019
registered on 22.08.2019 at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi
Kendra, ACB, District ACB Jaipur are quashed and set aside
along-with further all consequential proceedings including the
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5846] (68 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022]
criminal proceedings in the form of Sessions Case No.
27/2021 (CIS No.39/2021) pending before the Court of
learned Special Judge, ACD No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II.
45. In view of the order passed in the main petitions,
the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
NK Sharma/Dy. Registrar
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 01:00:56 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link