Gauhati High Court
Ajay Pradhani vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 22 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010213762025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1177/2025
AJAY PRADHANI
SON OF HIRA LAL PRADHAN, R/O- BUNGALOW NO B6, RAILWAY
OFFICERS COLONY, NEAR DRM OFFICE TINSUKIA, P.O. AND P.S.
TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (E.O.)
SHRIMANTAPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS P HALDER,MR P KATAKI,MRS R
BEGUM,MS. S. CHANDA,MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. U NANDA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
22.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr.K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
Page No.# 2/5
for the State of Assam.
2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ajay
Pradhan, impugning the order dated 19.11.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) in PRC Case No.
486/2020, whereby, cognizance of offence under Sections
120B/409/379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections
32/33/34/40/41/49 of the Assam Forest Rule (Amended) Act, 1995 was
taken against the present petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
aforesaid PRC Case was registered on filing of an FIR by one Aditya Kr.
Khaund, DCF, BI(EO), Assam before the Officer-in-Charge of BI(EO) Police
Station, inter alia, alleging that on the basis of a preliminary enquiry,
which was initiated against the present petitioner, it was found that the
present petitioner and his contractors/firms have violated the aforesaid
provisions of Assam Forest Rule and evaded forest royalty and VAT to the
tune of Rs. 4,29,43,407.00/-.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
original charge sheet after completion of the investigation, the charge
sheet was filed and in the original charge sheet, the petitioner was not
named as an accused. However, in the supplementary charge sheet, the
petitioner was arrayed as an accused.
5. He further submits that though the petitioner was posted as
Deputy Chief Engineer, Con-II, under N.F. Railway, Lumding Railway
Page No.# 3/5
Division, however, no prosecution sanction was obtained. He further
submits that the Investigating Officer has wrongly interpreted the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of " Subramanian Swamy Vs.
Manmohan Singh And Another" reported in "(2012) 3 SCC pg 64"
inasmuch as, it interrogated the said judgment to for giving that if the
prosecution sanction is not granted within 3(three) months from the date
of seeking it, it shall be deemed to have been granted.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
aforesaid Judgment, the Apex Court had only observed that the
parliament should consider introduce necessary amendment in Section 19
of the PC Act with a dealing provision.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
accordingly, Section 19 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, with a
deeming provisions, 1988 was amended, wherein, it was provided that
prayer for granting prosecution sanction shall have to be made within a
period of 3(three) months from the date of its receipt. However, no such
deeming provision was incorporated in the PC Act, 1988.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
instant case, the offence alleged against the petitioner are under Indian
Penal Code, 1860 as well as under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. He
further submits that the deeming provisions on failure of the grant of
sanction within a period of 3(three) months has been incorporated in
Section 218 (1) in second proviso to Section 218(1) which provides that
the government shall take the decision regarding grant of sanction within
a period of 120 (one hundred twenty) days from the date of receipt of
Page No.# 4/5
sanction and in case it fails to do so, the sanction shall be deemed to have
been accorded by such government.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
deeming provisions as incorporated in the aforesaid proviso to Section
218(1) of the BNSS, 2023, it came into force on 1 st June, 2023, whereas,
supplementary charge sheet was filed against the present petitioner on
31.10.2020, i.e. much prior to the coming into force of provisions of
Section 218(1) of the BNSS, 2023.
10. He, therefore, submits that in the instant case, the order of taking
cognizance against the present petitioner is bad in law inasmuch as no
prosecution sanction was there for taking such cognizance against the
present petitioner.
11. The contentions raised by the petitioner deserves consideration
and hence, let the scanned copy of the Trial Court records as well as
scanned copy of the connected Case Diary be called for from the Trial
Court.
12. Let this case be listed on 6th November, 2025.
13. In the meanwhile, considering the fact that on perusal of the
materials available on record, it appears that there was no prosecution
sanction for initiation of criminal proceedings against the present
petitioner when the charge sheet has been filed and the deeming
provisions contained in Section 218 of the BNSS, 2023 came into force
only on 1st July, 2023, i.e. much after the date of filing of the
Page No.# 5/5
supplementary charge sheet against the present petitioner. Hence, till next
returnable date, further proceeding of PRC Case No. 486/2020 shall
remain stayed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
