Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyamlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2695/2022
Shyamlal S/o Sh. Ram Chandra Khatik, Aged About 60 Years,
Opposite Magistrate Colony, Chittorgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Sanwalot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P. P.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/05/2022
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 28.03.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti
Corruption Cases No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the
'trial Court') whereby the trial Court has refused to investigate the
complaint filed by the petitioner for want of prosecution sanction.
2. The facts narrated briefly are that the petitioner/complainant
has lodged a complaint against 22 accused persons alleging that
they are indulged in corrupt activities.
3. The complaint aforesaid was filed on 09.12.2021, whereafter
the trial Court has asked for prosecution sanction from the
competent authority.
4. Since the prosecution sanction was not received, a reminder
letter dated 08.03.2022 was again sent for prosecution sanction.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2695/2022]
5. The petitioner prayed before the Court that since a period of
more than 90 days has passed from the date when the
prosecution sanction was sought, the trial be proceeded with,
treating the prosecution sanction deemed to have been given.
6. Trial Court refused to acceed to petitioner's request.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the trial
Court had requested the competent authority to accord the
prosecution sanction and again a reminder was sent on
08.03.2022, the trial Court was required to proceed with the trial
and issue direction for investigation, treating it to be a deemed
sanction.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr. reported in
(2012) 3 SCC 64, particularly paras No.27, 29 and 30.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner's contention is
misconceived and thus, untenable.
10. In the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra), Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has ordered that the directions given in the case of
Vineet Narain Vs. UOI reported in (1998) 1 SC 226 shall be
strictly adhered to. In the case of Vineet Narain (supra) Hon'ble
the Supreme Court had issued direction to the competent
authority to grant prosecution sanction within a period of three
months or in addition, a period of 30 days where consultation with
Attorney General or any other law officer in his office, is required.
11. While observing that the directions aforesaid were confined
to the matters to be dealt with by CBI, this Court is of the view
that it cannot be held as a matter of rule that in case case
prosecution sanction has to be given in 90 days. That apart, the
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2695/2022]
argument that since the prosecution sanction is not granted within
90 days, it should be treated as deemed sanction is too far
fetched. Neither the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court nor
any statutory scheme suggest such consequence.
12. Finding no substance, the petition is dismissed.
13. Stay application too stands dismissed accordingly.
14. Needless to observe that in case prosecution sanction is
given by the competent authority, the Court shall proceed in
accordance with law.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
90-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
