9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, whereby cognizance was taken and summoning orders were issued against the petitioner, suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the case without prior sanction under Section 19 of PC Act, which is a mandatory precondition for prosecuting a public servant for offences under the said Act. Learned senior counsel further submitted that cognizance has been taken against the petitioner solely under Section 120-B of the IPC, in the absence of any substantive offence under the Indian Penal Code being attributed to him. It was asserted that this amounts to a circumvention of the statutory bar imposed by Section 19 of the PC Act. 3. Learned senior counsel further argued that the CBI after concluding its investigation, admittedly forwarded the entire material collected during their investigation to the competent authority, namely the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBIC, for consideration of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. However, the competent authority, upon due application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfined solely to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act-particularly when sanction to prosecute the petitioner had been declined by the competent authority-the learned Trial Court could not have taken cognizance, let alone issued summons to the petitioner. Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent-CBI 8. Per contra, learned standing counsel for CBI opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite and defended the impugned order. It was submitted by the learned standing counsel that the learned Trial Court was justified in taking cognizance under Section 120-B IPC, in light of the material collected during the investigation which, according to the CBI, prima facie disclosed the role of the petitioner in the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification. 9. It was further submitted that sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was not required for taking cognizance of offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 120-B of the IPC. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma and another : 2023(3) RCR (Criminal) 836, wherein it was held that even in the abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India : 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 34. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 14. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is : Whether a public servant-against whom sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been expressly declined by the competent authority, where the denial of sanction has not even been challenged by the prosecuting agency and who is not charged with any independent or substantive offence under the Indian Penal Code-can nonetheless be prosecuted solely for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, when the sole object of that conspiracy is the commission of an offence under the PC Act. 15. The foundational facts are not in dispute; the charge sheet dated 30.11.2022 alleges the commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and Section 120-B of the IPC. It names two accused-Rohit Sharma and the present petitioner Sachin Ahlawat, both public servants at the relevant time. Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act has been duly accorded in the case of accused Rohit Sharma by the competent authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1; Shadakshari Vs. State of Karnataka : 2024(1) RCR (Criminal) 730 and Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India : 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 34 is misplaced, those decisions being distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present context. Similarly, reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A. Sreenivasa Reddy's case (supra) is equally unavailing. In A. Sreenivasa Reddy's case (supra), the allegations against the accused involved not only offences under the PC Act, but also serious and independent offences under the Indian Penal Code, including forgery and cheating under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Court, in that case, held that in the absence of sanction under the PC Act, prosecution could still proceed on the strength of distinct and independent offences under the IPC. 21. In contrast, the present case stands on a fundamentally different footing. No other offence under the IPC has been alleged against the petitioner apart from Section 120-B of the IPC. Further, the prosecution has conceded that the alleged conspiracy pertains solely to the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. There is no material on record to suggest any independent criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case arose in the context of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the underlying principle applies equally to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Where the substratum of the allegation of conspiracy is an offence for which prosecution is legally barred, the consequential conspiracy charge cannot independently survive. 25. Adverting to the case in hand, even otherwise, this Court has perused the material placed on record, including the transcripts of telephonic conversations. On a prima facie evaluation, there is no cogent or credible material to suggest any express or tacit agreement between the petitioner and the co-accused to demand or accept illegal gratification. In fact, the charge sheet itself, particularly paragraph 16.44 which stands extracted hereinunder, records that the petitioner declined the request made on behalf of the associate of the complainant and proceeded with lawful enforcement action. Such conduct negates, rather than supports, the inference of a conspiratorial understanding:- "16.44 Investigation revealed that during the said meeting Sh. Om Sehrawat enquired from Naresh about the telephonic recording done by him of conversation with accused Roh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attempt to invoke Section 120-B IPC in such a scenario amounts to a colourable exercise of power intended to circumvent the statutory protection under Section 19 of the PC Act. 28. It is a well-settled principle of law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Allowing the prosecution of a public servant under Section 120-B IPC for conspiracy to commit an offence under the PC Act, despite the denial of sanction, would effectively render the provision of Section 19 of the PC Act nugatory. Such an approach would circumvent the legislative safeguards designed to protect public servants by enabling a colorable prosecution under Section 120-B IPC, bypassing the procedural requirement of sanction. This would create an anomalous situation where a public servant could be tried for an offence under the PC Act, despite no cognizance being permissible in the absence of sanction. The safeguard of sanction would thus become illusory, and the constitutional protection under Article 14 would be compromised, allowing for the selective and unjust application of penal consequences. Such a scenario would undermine the clear legislative intent, eroding the protective framework de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
