Rajasthan High Court
Deewan Singh Deora S/O Sh. Kishore ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 November, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 486/2021
Deewan Singh Deora S/o Sh. Kishore Singh, R/o Chawrali, Tehsil
Pindwara, Distt. Sirohi, At Present R/o H.no. 24, Jeewan Tara
Colony, Gordhan Vilas, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
2. Gaurav Modi S/o Lt. Jainarayan, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o 34A, Shrirampura Colony, Civil Lines Jaipur, Presently
Partner Ganesh Stone Crasher Nareda, Kotputli, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
29/11/2021
1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case
No.12/2020 pending before Special Judge, Sessions Court,
Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, No.1, Jaipur for offence under
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
the Superintending Mining Engineer (SME), Vigilance, Mines
Department, Jaipur Zone, Rajasthan. A complaint was filed with
the Anti Corruption Bureau on 20.05.2019. A voice recorder was
given to the complainant. Complainant is the owner of Ganesh
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-486/2021]
Stone Crusher and he has levelled allegations that his vehicles
were seized by the petitioner, as they were not having
E-Ravannas. A voice recording was done on 26.05.2019, wherein,
it is alleged that there is transcript that petitioner received Rs.1
lakh and that petitioner demanded Rs.2.5 lakh per month. It is
also contended that on 26.05.2019, petitioner was not at his
residence and was performing his official duties at Sikar. It is
mentioned in the transcript that petitioner had also received
Rs.50,000/- from complainant's uncle. It is argued that the said
recording was not kept in any sealed cover and the transcript was
made on 03.10.2019 i.e. after more than four months.
3. It is further contended that petitioner was made A.P.O. and
thereafter the transcript was made. The F.I.R. was lodged on
31.10.2019 that is almost after 28 days of drawing of transcript.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 17-A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as "the Act")
has been inserted with effect from 26.07.2018. It is contended
that if a person is arrested on the spot on the charge of accepting
or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for
any other person, previous approval as provided under Section
17-A of the Act would not be necessary.
5. It is contended that no red handed trap was done on behalf
of the Anti Corruption Bureau. Since, the red handed trap has not
taken place, Section 17-A of the Act, would apply.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Kailash
Chandra Agarwal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr." (S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.159/2018 alongwith other
connected petitions) decided by Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on
07.04.2020. Reliance has also been placed on "Mangat Ram
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-486/2021]
Khanna @ M.R. Khanna vs. State of Rajasthan" (S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.5620/2021), wherein, the interim order was
passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on 23.11.2021 &
"Tara Ram Mali & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan" (S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.3592/2021), wherein also the interim
order was passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on
22.09.2021.
7. I have considered the contentions and have perused the
record.
8. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that charge-sheet
has been filed against petitioner and prosecution sanction has also
been received under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
9. As to whether Section 17-A of the Act would apply, is a moot
question to be decided by the High Court. Section 17-A of the Act
is reproduced here as under:-
"17A. (1) 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 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
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-486/2021]
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."
10. As per Section 17-A of the Act, Police Officer is debarred
from conducting any inquiry or investigation into any offence
alleged to have been committed by a public servant under 17-A of
the Act, wherein the alleged offence is relatable to any
recommendations made or decisions taken by such public servant
in discharge of his official functions or duties without the previous
approval. A demand of bribe cannot be considered to be a work
done by the public servant in discharge of his official functions or
duties and Section 17-A of the Act would, therefore, not be
applicable to the present case, where there is a transcript of the
petitioner demanding Rs.2.5 lakh per month from the
complainant. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner
in "Kailash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr."
(supra) differ on facts as in that case the offence alleged was
relatable to recommendation made or decision taken by the public
servant in discharge of the public duty.
11. Sanction has been given for prosecution of the petitioner and
there is transcript, wherein there is demand of money, merely on
the ground that F.I.R. was lodged with delay, cannot be made a
ground for quashing of F.I.R.
12. The plea of alibi that petitioner was not at his residence but
at Sikar, cannot be taken note of at this stage, since the demand
of bribe is prima facie established by the transcript available on
record.
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-486/2021]
13. No ground is made out for quashing the criminal
proceedings.
14. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay
application stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
AMIT KUMAR /20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
