The Allahabad high court has observed that a trial court cannot direct an investigating agency, such as the CBI, to ensure that sanction for the prosecution of a public servant is obtained, as such a direction virtually amounts to directing the competent sanctioning authority to grant sanction, which is impermissible in law.
This observation was made by Justice Raj Beer Singh while allowing a quashing petition filed by former Saharanpur district magistrate Pawan Kumar, challenging an order of the special judge, CBI, 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 in Saharanpur.
Allowing the petition filed by Pawan Kumar, the high court set aside the order of special judge, CBI insofar as it related to Kumar, who is posted as director in the department of rural development, Delhi.
The court accepted the CBI closure report against him and quashed the proceedings.
A first information report was registered following a preliminary enquiry 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.
While challenging this order, the former DM moved the high court arguing that he had merely acted in discharge of his official duties and pursuant to directions issued by the state government, 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 the renewal of the mining leases.
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 court had opined that a prima facie case existed against the applicant and a direction was issued to secure prosecution sanction, the impugned order adversely affected his rights. The court also said that the trial court’s direction appeared against law. Hence, the single judge found the petition under section 482 CrPC to be maintainable.
On the merits of the case, the high court noted that the material collected during the CBI investigation showed that the applicant had merely sought reports from subordinate officials as directed by the state government and forwarded those reports without any alteration, recommendation or opinion. Nothing on record indicated that he had submitted any false or misleading report or recommended renewal of the leases.
Justice Singh, in the judgment dated July 15, observed that the special judge had failed to identify any material showing misconduct, abuse of official position, or participation in any criminal conspiracy.