- (1.) BY the impugned order Annex. 14 dated 19/3/2012, the respondent Divisional Forest Officer, Bikaner has sanctioned prosecution of the petitioner, who was working as Forester on the alleged charge of disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income under Section 13 (1)(e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vinit Mathur submitted that not only the disproportion is minimal, sufficient explanation has been given by the petitioner to the respondent authority but the respondent authority virtually reproducing the report of Investigating Officer, without application of mind, has sanctioned prosecution. Leaned counsel for the respondents, Mr.S.R.Paliwal, however, supports the order sanctioning prosecution against the petitioner.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsels for the parties, though this Court would not have normally interfered in such matters as they are premature stages of trial, which the petitioner ought to have undergone, but from the bare perusal of the two orders; report of the Investigating Officer and the prosecution order, it appears that the respondent ­ Divisional Forest Officer, Bikaner without giving his own reasons and independently applying his mind has sanctioned the prosecution.;