Prayagraj, Jul 27 The Allahabad High Court has observed that a trial court cannot direct the investigating agency such as the CBI to secure sanction for the prosecution of a public servant as such a direction virtually amounts to directing the competent authority to grant sanction that is impermissible in law.
With this observation, Justice Raj Beer Singh allowed a petition by former Saharanpur DM Pawan Kumar challenging an order of the special judge at Ghaziabad refusing to accept a CBI closure report and directing the agency to obtain prosecution sanction against him in connection with the alleged illegal renewal of sand mining leases.
The high court set aside the order of special judge, CBI insofar as it related to petitioner Pawan Kumar who is presently posted as director in the Department of Rural Development, New Delhi.
The high court accepted the CBI closure report in the matter and quashed the proceedings.
An FIR was registered in 2016 following a preliminary inquiry into the alleged illegal renewal of 13 sand mining leases in Saharanpur. After investigation, the CBI filed a closure report concluding that the allegations against Pawan Kumar could not be substantiated and that no material indicating criminal conspiracy, cheating or abuse of official position had been found against him.
However, the special judge refused to accept the closure report.
While taking cognizance against several private accused, the trial court also directed the CBI to obtain sanction for prosecuting Pawan Kumar under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Challenging this order, the former DM moved the high court on the ground that he had merely acted in discharge of his official duties and pursuant to the directions issued by the state government, he had collected factual reports from subordinate authorities and forwarded them to the government.
It was his stance that he had no role in making any recommendation, approval, or independent opinion regarding renewal of the mining leases.
It was further contended that the government alone was the competent authority to decide the issue of renewal and that no second renewal lease deed was ever executed because of an interim order passed by the high court.
The CBI, on the other hand, argued that the petition under section 482 CrPC was not maintainable as the applicant had not yet been summoned and the trial court had merely directed the agency to obtain prosecution sanction.
While rejecting this preliminary objection, the high court observed that since the trial courts had opined that a prima facie case existed against the applicant and a direction was issued to secure prosecution sanction, the order impugned adversely affected his rights.
The high court also said that the said direction of the trial court appeared against law. Hence, the single-judge bench found the petition under section 482 CrPC to be maintainable.
