JUDGMENT A.K. Roopanwal, J.
1. Both these criminal revisions have been filed against the order dated 1.12.2003 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1997, State v. Rishi Kumar Agarwal and Anr. whereby the application moved by the revisionists Rishi Kumar Agarwal and Mahendra Singh Yadav, for their discharge from the case was rejected and charges were framed against them.
2. It appears from trio facts of the case that one Sheodan Singh, son of Shyam Lal Yadav, resident of Nagla Santa, Hamlet of Bedhai, Tehsil Sadabad, District Mathura, gave an application to the Superintendent U.P. Vigilance Department at Agra on 77.1992 alleging therein that the revisionist Rishi Kumar Agarwal S.D.O. (Electricity), Sadabad, District Mathura, was demanding a sum of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from him in order to show some favour. The S.P. Vigilance, Agra, directed the Deputy S.P. Vigilance, Agra, Sri Dharmpal Singh to arrange a trap against the revisionist Rishi Kumar Agarwal. Tne trap was laid on 28.3.1992 and when he was accepting the illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- from the applicant Sheodan Singh he was apprehended by the vigilance department and a case at Crime No. 77 of 1992 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was registered against him. During investigation of the case it came to light that the revisionist Mahendra Singh Yadav, who was working as Sub Station Operator at Electricity Sub Station, Sadabad, District Mathura, had prepared the forged departmental documents in order to save Sri Rishi Kumar Agarwal. After investigation sanction for prosecution was taken from the Competent Authority and then charge sheet was submitted against to revisionists. When the case came at the stage of framing of the charge a request was made by the revisionists Rishi Kumar Agarwal and Mahendra Singh Yadav to discharge them from the charges on two grounds, firstly, that the investigation was conducted by a person not authorised under the Act to conduct investigation and secondly, the sanction for prosecution accorded by the Competent Authority was not a valid sanction and thus it was a case in which "no sanction" for prosecution as was required under Section 19 of the Act was accorded. The trial court did not accept the case of the revisionists and their prayer was rejected. Subsequently thereto charges were framed under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B I.P.C. and Section 218 I.P.C. against the revisionists. The revisionist Rishi Kumar Agarwal was also separately charged for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(I)(d) and 13(11)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 1.12.2003 rejecting the prayer of the revisionists for discharge and the framing of the charges against them, both the revisionists have filed these revisions.
4. I have heard Mr. Dilip Kumar and Mr. Rajiv Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the record. Mr. Dilip Kumar assailed the impugned order of the trial court dated 1.12.2003 and the charges framed against the revisionists on the following two points:
5. Firstly, that the case against the revisionists was investigated by Inspector of Vigilance, who was not authorised to investigate as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and that the investigation can also not be said to be a fair investigation as it was conducted by an officer below the rank of the officer, who had conducted the raid and secondly, the sanction for prosecution accorded in the present case cannot: be said to be a valid sanction in the eye of law and on the basis of such sanction prosecution of the revisionists cannot go on.
6. Regarding the first point it was argued by Mr. Dilip Kumar that the raid was conducted by Sri Dharampal Singh, Deputy S.P. Vigilance while the investigation of the case was conducted by the Inspector Vigilance, an officer subordinate to the Deputy S.P. Vigilance and therefore the investigation cannot be said to be a fair and impartial investigation. It was also argued that the Inspector Vigilance was not authorised to investigate the case under the Act.
7. It is true that in the present case raid was conducted by the Deputy S.P. Vigilance and the investigation was conducted by a subordinate officer to him but this alone cannot be a ground for the discharge unless and until it is shown that some prejudice has been caused to the revisionists by such an investigation and because no such prejudice has been shown in the present case, hence an order of discharge cannot be passed solely on the ground that the Investigation was conducted by an officer subordinate to the officer, who had conducted the raid.
8. To appreciate the other ground regarding investigation in that regard it would be necessary to refer the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It runs as follows:
17.Persons authorised to investigate: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,-
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police,
(c) elsewhere;, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a Police Officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first, class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant;
Provided further that an offence referred to in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of police.
9. Thus from the perusal of the above section it appears that the case under the Act can well be investigated by a police officer of the rank of an Inspector of Police if he is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by a general or special order.
10. In view of this provision, now, it would be pertinent to see as to whether the State of U.P. had authorised the Inspector of Police to investigate a case under the Act or not. In this regard I would like to refer the notification No. 291/XXXIX-4-91-44(30)-81, dated September 18, 1992 published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra, Part 41 Section (Kha), dated 18th September, 1992, p.2(AP938), it says "In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, (U.P. Act No. VII of 1965), The Governor, in continuation of Government Notification No. 582/XXXIX-VGL-1965, dated February 12, 1965 and No. 2614/XXXIX(2)/217-1964, dated October 3, 1975 is pleased to specify the following offences also which are to be investigated by the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment:
Offences Punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (Act No. 49 of 1988)
11. By another notification of 1993 of the U.P. Government the following provision was made:
In exercise of the powers under the first proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988, read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897) and in supersession of Government Notification No. 1796/XXXIX-VGL-100-65 dated September 16, 1965, the Governor is pleased to authorise the police officers in the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment not below the rank of Inspector of Police to investigate a case relating to offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, referred to Vigilance Establishment by the Government in the Vigilance Department, without the order of a Magistrate of the first class:
Provided that any offence referred to in Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
Thus in view of the above notifications it is very much clear that the police Inspector of the Vigilance Deaprtment of U.P. was authorised to investigate the case under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) after the year 1993. As the cases of the present revisionists were under investigation in the year 1994, hence the Inspector of Vigilance Department was fully authorised to conduct the Investigation and thus the investigation cannot be said to have been done by an unauthorised officer and on this ground also the discharge could not be ordered.
13. Now comes the second argument i.e. regarding the grant of sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act.
14. It has been argued by Mr. Dilip Kumar that the sanction for prosecution accorded by Sri Gajendra Pal Singh, Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board vide his letter dated 28.2.1994 cannot be said to be a valid sanction for prosecution as it was granted in a mechanical way and under the instructions of the U.P. Government. The Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board, was not allowed any option "not to grant sanction" and he was bound to grant sanction for prosecution as per the directions of the Government.
15. Mr. Dilip Kumar argued that a sanction to be a valid sanction should be granted by the sanctioning authority freely by applying his own discretion and should not be a sanction granted under pressure. In this regard he has relied upon Mansukhlal Vithaidas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat. This ruling clarifies the basic ingredients of a valid sanction. It has been held in this ruling that "sine" the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution."
16. If, in the present case, the sanction granted by the Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board, is tested on the above parameters, we would find that it is virtually a "bad" and no sanction' in the eye of law.
17. It appears that the matter of sanction was referred to the U.P. Government and Kusum Sharma, Joint Secretary, Energy Department II, U.P. Government vide order No. 7590P-2/93-2344(47)E/93 dated 15.5.1994 directed the concerned authority of the Electricity department to grant sanction for prosecution, concerning the revisionists, to the Vigilance Department by 28.2.1994. A copy of this letter was sent to the Chairman/ Secretary, U.P. State Electricity Board, by Kusum Sharma, the Joint Secretary. Thereafter the Chairman Sri Gajendra Pal Singh of U.P. State Electricity Board granted the sanction for prosecution vide Order No. 326 Ano. Ka. Evam Satar.-05A 947 Ka/92 dated 28.2.1994.
18. In view of the above, it is very much clear that Sri Gajendra Pal Singh, who accorded the sanction was acting purely under the directions of Kusum Sharma, the Joint Secretary, Energy Department II, Government of U.P., who had directed him to grant a sanction vide letter dated 15.5.1994, referred to above. He was left with no option but to grant sanction by 28.2.1994 and it is very much important to mention here that by this cut off date i.e. 28.2.1994 he accorded the sanction. If the Chairman would not have been acting under the directions of the Joint. Secretary of the U.P. Government, he could have granted sanction even after 28.2.1994. The very fact that the sanction was granted on the last date fixed by the Joint Secretary of the U.P. Government shows that the Chairman was under the pressure to grant sanction positively by 28.2.1994 and thus ho was not able to act freely in the matter.
19. The sanction granted by the Chairman can also not be said to be a valid sanction on one more count. It is on the record that prior to the grant of sanction by the Chairman on 28.2.1994 the request for grant of sanction with regard to the revisionist Mahendra Singh Yadav had been rejected by the Executive Engineer concerned on 10.1.1994 i.e. 11/2 months before 28.2.1994 vide order dated 10.1.1994 (Annexure No. 5 to the revision petition) but in spite of this rejection the Chairman did not care to see as to on what grounds the sanction had once been refused to the revisionist Mahendra Singh Yadav. This clearly indicates that the Chairman was in hurry to grant the sanction and had not taken into account all the material, which could be relevant for the consideration of the matter in question.
20. He, in a routine manner, wrote in his order dated 28.2.1994 that he had perused all the material on record. If it would have been so then certainly he would have mentioned the fact of rejection order passed by the Executive Engineer concerned regarding the revisionist Mahendra Singh Yadav in his order dated 28.2.1994.
21. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the sanction for prosecution granted by the Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board, was hurriedly given without considering all the relevant material necessary for taking a correct decision. It also transpires that this sanction was given under the directions of the U.P. Government and the Chairman was not left with the option to apply his mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. He was under the pressure of the U.P. Government to grant sanction as the order passed by the Joint Secretary, U.P. Government, was hanging over him to take a decision latest by 28.2.1984 and always in favour of the Vigilance Department. This was a sanction, which has been affected by the extraneous consideration and cannot be said to be a valid sanction.
22. Thus, I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the sanction accorded for prosecuting the revisionists cannot be said to be a valid sanction and it is virtually "no sanction" in the eye of law. On the basis of such an invalid sanction the prosecution cannot be allowed to continue and the revisionists deserve discharge. It is a case where no charge should have been framed against them. By not discharging the revisionists and by framing charges against their vide impugned order dated 1.12.2003 an improper order has been passed by the trial court, which is liable to be set aside.
23. Consequently the revision is 'table to be allowed. The revision is allowed and the order dated 1.12.2003 is hereby set aside. The revisionists Rishi Kumar Agarwal and Mahendra Singh yadav are hereby discharged from the charges framed against them by the trial court.