S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.678/08
Ranchhoda Ram v. The State & Likhamaram
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
O R D E R.
RANCHHODA RAM V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & LIKHAMARAM.
S. B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.678/08
DATE OF ORDER ::: 26/10/2009
HON'BLE MR. C. M. TOTLA, J.
Mr. M.S.Rajpurohit, for Petitioner.
Mr. Panney Singh, PP, for the State.
Mr. Nishant & Mr. I.S.Chaudhary, for Respondent No.2.
BY THE COURT:
Petitioner complainant challenges order of 18.6.08 accepting Final
Report No.25/07 for FIR No.169/06 and rejecting petitioner/complainant-s
application by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act – by the order,
submitted negative final report is accepted.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor.
S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.678/08
Ranchhoda Ram v. The State & Likhamaram
2
Brief events and facts relevant are that on petitioner complainant’s
report presented to Dy. S. P., Anti-Corruption on 12.6.06, proceedings for
trap began and alleged conversation of subsequent days recorded
thereafter following continuing proceedings on 15.6.06 allegedly
received amount of Rs.5,000/- R2 from complainant – recovered from
his possession – hands wash disclosing presence of phenolphthalein
powder on hands etc. also collected.
After detailed investigation, the department submitted July, 07
final report No.81/07 for the registered FIR No.169/06, describing that no
sufficient evidence of respondent Sarpanch demanding and accepting
bribe.
Petitioner complainant submitted protest application on 28.9.07 –
Court ordered posting on 27.10.07 for evidence/arguments. Subsequently,
on 22.10.07, Nov. 07, Jan, 08 and Feb.08, opportunity for evidence per
asking of petitioner afforded – on 25.3.08 posted for arguments on final
report.
Petitioner presented an application on 16.4.08 under Section 19 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and learned Judge vide impugned order
dated 18.6.08, rejecting petitioner’s application requesting for forwarding
matter for prosecution sanction accepted submitted negative final report.
Petitioner is aggrieved of the above order – requests that setting
aside the above order, trial Court be directed to proceed against the
S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.678/08
Ranchhoda Ram v. The State & Likhamaram
3
accused according to law and also direction to department for according
sanction for prosecution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that pending proceedings
of police report, petitioner’s protest application was posted for evidence of
petitioner and once a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is posted for
recording statement, it is a must for Court to record petitioner and his
witnesses’ statements. Argued that learned Judge refusing to record
statements and proceeding to hear negative final report and accepting it is
quite contrary to law. Argued that petitioner requested for forwarding the
matter to sanctioning authority to accord sanction of prosecution, and the
order rejecting application is contrary to law and without any plausible
reason.
On behalf of petitioner argued that on petitioner’s complaint, the
proceedings were initiated and he aggrieved of the final report preferred
protest petition a complaint and learned Judge ought to have proceeded
per Sections 200 to 202 Cr.P.C.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner’s complaint is
for cognizance of offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act
and cognizance for the offence under the Act cannot be taken without
sanction under Section 19. Submitted that investigating agency, after
extensive investigation, arrived at conclusion of non-demand and
acceptance of bribe by the Sarpanch. Submitted that the order of the
S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.678/08
Ranchhoda Ram v. The State & Likhamaram
4
learned Sessions Judge justified also on facts and as per law.
Petitioner’s contention is that posting the complaint for recording of
statements, the Court has already taken cognizance of the offence.
Section 200 provides that “a Magistrate taking cognizance or an
offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complaint and
witnesses present”. Thus, simultaneous to cognizance, if any, has to be
examination of the complainant. S. 200 speaks of taking cognizance and
for this, examination of complainant is essential. Thus, it is not always
that cognizance and examination is not a continuing or simultaneous act.
This examination is not merely a formality more so in such a contingency
when FR is submitted. If cognizance is on complaint, the same can only
be on examination of complainant or on facts. The object of examination
is verification and also justifiability of complaint. It is also meant to find
out whether it is frivolous or vexatious.
Proceedings were registered for the offence of Prevention of
Corruption Act. Complaint, i.e., protest application of the petitioner
preferred before Special Judge accompanied with supporting affidavits of
some persons is for rejecting final report and registering case under
Sections 7, & 13 (1) (D) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act bars cognizance
without previous sanction of the competent authority. The section
provides that “no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.678/08
Ranchhoda Ram v. The State & Likhamaram
5
under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a
public servant except with the previous sanction.” Thus, prior to taking
cognizance, sanction is a must. In that view also and particularly when
final report is submitted, ( and accepted by Court) seems no illegality in
order impugned.
Coming to question of forwarding the papers for prosecution
sanction, it will seem that learned Judge elaborately dealing with the
matter and on alleged facts and reasons assigned by the investigating
agency, has accepted the final report. In that view of the matter, learned
trial Judge committed no error in refusing to direct investigating agency
for obtaining sanction.
In above view of the matter, the petition deserves to be rejected.
However, it is made clear that petitioner is not precluded from taking or
initiating any other proceeding per law.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected. However, the petitioner, if he
so desires and feels necessity, can approach the department.
(C. M. TOTLA), J.
scd