- (1.) AMITAVA Roy, J The appellants being aggrieved by the negation of their challenge to the grant of sanction for their prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act"), they are in appeal seeking redress.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.M.C.Bhoot, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Arpit Bhoot for the appellants and Mr.Manoj Bhandari & Mr.I.S.Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents. As the issues raised in both the appeals are common, they were heard together and are being decided by this judgment. The facts are taken from appeal no.210/2012. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeals are that the appellant while were serving as LDC with the respondents-Jodhpur Discom Department, one Pawan Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar filed a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh alleging inter-alia that he (appellant) had sought for illegal gratification in the matter of grant of electric connection to his (complainant) rented shop. It was imputed that the appellant had represented that the concerned Junior Engineer Raja Ram Luhaniwal (appellant in appeal no.211/2012) had demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as bribe and that accordingly, he (complainant) gave Rs.25,000/- to the appellant & Raja Ram when the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau arrived at the spot and intercepted the transaction.
(3.) THE investigating agency on the basis of the complaint registered the case and prepared the trap proceedings vis-a-vis the appellant & Raja Ram Luhaniwal. FIR No.59/2009 was registered against them under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act and Section 120B IPC by the Addl.SP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Churu. When the sanction for prosecution of the appellant and Raja Ram Luhaniwal was sought for, the respondent no.3-Chief Engineer, Jodhpur Discom, Bikaner refused to grant the same, whereafter, the matter was referred to the concerned Principal Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan, who remitted the matter back to the respondent no.3 for passing a fresh order. Though this authority on 29.12.2010 again declined to grant the sanction, eventually, on 26.7.2011, it had accorded the same to facilitate prosecution of the appellant and Raja Ram Luhaniwal in the aforementioned criminal case. Aggrieved, they sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Being unsuccessful, they are in appeal.;