Delhi Court Discharges CRPF Dealing Clerk In Corruption Case On Account Of Invalid Sanction For Prosecution
A Delhi Court discharged a man for offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act on the ground that the sanction for prosecution against him was invalid.The court was dealing with a matter wherein the accused worked as a Dealing Clerk with the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF). He was charged under Sections 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in...
A Delhi Court discharged a man for offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act on the ground that the sanction for prosecution against him was invalid.
The court was dealing with a matter wherein the accused worked as a Dealing Clerk with the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF). He was charged under Sections 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act) and 13(2) (punishment for criminal misconduct by public servant) read with Section 13(1) of the PC Act.
The accused had contended that the sanction for prosecution against him was invalid as it was accorded mechanically, without application of mind and without taking into account the relevant material.
The court of Special Judge (PC Act) Manoj Kumar at Rouse Avenue Court Complex, in its order first considered whether the accused was a public servant at the relevant time period.
The court found the accused to be a public servant based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, contents of office orders and statement of the accused during his examination under the CrPC.
The Court then considered whether due sanction under Section 19 of PC Act was given against the accused. It noted that the prosecution did not place any material on record to show the date on which the sanction was applied by the CBI before the sanctioning authority–Office of Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Home Affairs.
It also noted that the prosecution did not call for any record from the office of sanctioning authority to establish the chronology of events which led to the grant of sanction.
The Court pointed that the date on which the sanction order was purportedly passed (July 5, 2018) and the date below the signature of the then Additional Controller General of Accounts (July 13, 2018), was different. It did not agree with the Public Prosecutor's contention that a different date of July 13, 2018 was mistakenly written by the then Additional Controller General of Accounts
It stated “In view of sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 order Ex.PW15/A [sanction order] is to be read as such, unless any evidence were led by the prosecution to show that the things were otherwise. Further, this court is of the considered view that it need not to indulge in conjectures and surmises to find as to why two dates have been mentioned in Ex.PW15/A.”
The Court further observed that forensic reports (CFSL reports) and the alleged conversation where accused "demanded bribe" from the complainant were not put up before the Additional Controller General of Accounts at the time of grant of the sanction.
After pointing out the discrepancies in the sanction order, it stated that “The purported sanction has been accorded to prosecute the accused for the commission of offences punishable U/s 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act, 1988, and thus, it is clear that the law which define the offences and prescribe punishment therefor has also not been mentioned by its short title or as per the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897.”
The Special Court thereafter said that the sanction for prosecution purportedly accorded by Additional Controller was not a valid sanction under the PC Act.
After holding the sanction for prosecution to be invalid, the Court then referred to a Supreme Court case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2015), where the apex court had said that the Trial Court, after holding the sanction order as invalid, should have discharged the accused.
In the present case, the Special Court thus discharged the accused of offences under the PC Act as the sanction for prosecution against him was not valid.
“Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanjappa's case (supra) accused Rajender Kumar Garg @ R.K. Garg is discharged of offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the commission of which he has been put on trial," the court said.
Case title: The State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Rajender Kumar Garg @ R.K. Garg
Counsel for State : Public Prosecutor Neel Mani
Counsel For Defence : Advocates Pradeep Rana and Gagan Bhatnagar