Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Prakash Dharu has approached this Court assailing the order dated 19.2.2013 whereby, sanction was granted to prosecute him for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner, who was posted as an ASI at the Police Station Ratanada at the relevant point of time was trapped whilst accepting bribe of Rs. 5000/- from one Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat. After lodging of the written report, the allegation of demand of bribe levelled by the complainant was verified and a trap was laid. The petitioner is alleged to have accepted the bribe amount from the complainant at the University Out Post. He appears to have caught wind of the trap laid for apprehending him upon which, he tried to escape by scaling the wall of the Out Post after throwing down the tainted currency notes. Nevertheless, he was apprehended by the trap party. The tainted currency notes were found lying behind the Out Post. The petitioner’s hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and the wash turned pink. The recordings saved in the digital voice recorder at the time of demand and the acceptance of bribe were heard and the fact that the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification was duly corroborated therefrom. The petitioner was given a notice to give his sample voice for comparison but he refused. The wash of the petitioner’s hands was sent to the FSL wherefrom, a report was received that it tested positive for presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. While concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the allegation of demand as well as the acceptance of bribe was duly proved against the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted a proposal of sanction to the petitioner’s disciplinary authority being the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Police Comissionerate, Jodhpur, who by order dated 19.2.2013, which is assailed in the instant writ petition, accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the above offences. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
(3.) The principal challenge which is laid to the impugned sanction order by the petitioner’s counsel Ms.Vandana Bhansali is that the sanction was accorded without due and independent application of mind to the facts of the case. The Investigating Agency submitted a draft sanction to the disciplinary authority, who without application of mind to the facts of the case, mechanically signed the draft sanction. Thus, as per the learned counsel, the sanction order dated 19.2.2013 having been passed without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of her arguments, Ms. Bhansali relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ganga Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) RLW 2619 (Raj.) and urged that the writ petition deserves acceptance and the sanction order dated 19.2.2013 is liable to be quashed and set aside.;