Rupendra Kumar Jain S/O Late Shri ... vs Rajasthan Financial Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 6062 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1188/2018

Rupendra Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri N.k. Jain, Aged About 54
Years, R/o 669, Tikkiwalon Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      Rajasthan Financial Corporation Through Its Cmd, Tilak
        Nagar, Jaipur.
2.      The Cmd Rfc Jaipur
3.      The Anti Corruption Bureau Through Its Director, Govt. Of
        Raj. Jhallana Dungari, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shah, Senior Counsel with Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Mr. Akshit Gupta, Mr. Harendra Neel, Mr. Pukhraj Chawla, Mr. Yash Joshi, Mr. Sarah Sharma, Ms. Pragya, Ms. Kashika Jain, Mr. Archit Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi, AAG with Mr. Udit Sharma Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Counsel with Mr. Jai Lodha

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 29.08.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 07.09.2022

By way of this petition, the petitioner has filed the criminal

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash

and set aside the order dated 28.06.2010 for granting the

prosecution sanction to ACB whereas earlier it was rejected vide

order dated 11.08.2009.

(2 of 4) [CRLW-1188/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Competent

Authority after considering all the relevant materials and denied

the prosecution sanction against the petitioner vide order dated

11.08.2009. After that pressure of ACB, prosecution sanction

against the petitioner was granted on 28.06.2010. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that granting of prosecution

sanction was under the pressure of ACB. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that prior to refusing the prosecution

sanction, preliminary enquiry was conducted by Competent

Authority and clearly stated that it is not a fit case for granting the

prosecution sanction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption

had written a letter that circular of State Government dated

30.05.2001, 06.04.2002 and 19.04.2007 were not followed in

rejecting the prosecution sanction, so, prosecution sanction be

reviewed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

after refusal of prosecution sanction, respondent ACB has

approached the Chief Vigilance Commissioner for according

sanction but Competent Authority had taken a decision that

opinion of CVC is merely advisory, so, once a prosecution sanction

was denied, it could not be reviewed because all the materials

were considered while denying the prosecution sanction. So, order

of prosecution sanction dated 28.06.2010 is completely illegal,

capricious and liable to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments : (1) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.

Nishant Sareen reported in 2010 (14) SCC 527; (2)

Rajendra Singh Meena Vs. JNNVL reported in 2016 (1) RLW

735 (Raj.); (3) R. S. Tomar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported

(3 of 4) [CRLW-1188/2018]

in 2015 SCC online Raj 6117; (4) State of Rajasthan Vs.

Rajendra Singh Meena reported in 2016 SCC Online Raj

9029; (5) Rajendrasinh Amarsinh Solanki Vs. State of

Gujarat reported in 2015 (56) 2 GLR 1122; (6) Avtar Singh

Jaiswal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 SCC Online

P&H 20186; (7) Shri L Megha Naik Vs. State of Karnataka

reported in ILR 2015 KAR 2053 and (8) Abdul Aziz Gauri Vs.

State of Rajasthan reported in 2016 (3) WLN 281 (Raj.).

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that material evidences were not considered in denying

the prosecution sanction. Learned counsel for the respondent also

submitted that affidavit of Competent Authority was filed as per

direction of this Court in which Competent Authority clearly stated

that at the time of denial of prosecution sanction, evidences of the

case were not considered. Learned counsel for the respondent also

submitted that if new material came to the knowledge of the

Competent Authority then Competent Authority can review its

order and grant the prosecution sanction. Learned counsel for the

respondent also submitted that trial is going on and petitioner has

opportunity to cross-examine the authority who had given the

prosecution sanction. So, petition is devoid of merits and liable to

be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

following judgments: (1) Dilip Kumar Sharma Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Ors. in Writ Petition (Cr.) No.355/2017

decided on 06.04.2018 and (2) C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar

Aggarwal in Criminal Appeal No.1838/2013 decided on

22.11.2013.

(4 of 4) [CRLW-1188/2018]

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent.

It is an admitted position that at the time of denial of

prosecution sanction, relevant materials were not considered.

After the letter of Additional Director General of Police, Anti

Corruption, Competent Authority re-examined the matter with

relevant materials and found that it is necessary to grant the

prosecution sanction. So, in my considered opinion, order of

granting the prosecution sanction against the petitioner does not

suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, petition is being devoid of

merits and liable to be dismissed.

The Criminal Writ Petition stands dismissed.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /49

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)