- (1.) A common strain runs in both the cases and hence both are being dealt with by a common order.
(2.) The issue involved is with regard to delay in granting prosecution sanction in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act of 1988') in relation to public servants where there is an allegation against them for having committed offences under the various provisions of the Act of 1988.
(3.) The learned Single Judge while hearing S.B.Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.9673/2012: Ramjilal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan on 02nd November, 2012 observed as under : - "11. There is another angle that needs to be noted, which is that even when the Bureau proposes to file charge-sheet in a given case, matter hangs fire with the government for want of sanction for years together. Sanction is refused in more number of cases then is granted. This despite the law developed by catena of judicial pronouncements that the demand of illegal gratification for discharge of an official duty is not a part of his official duty and if on facts his such two actions can be segregated, the question arises whether sanction for prosecution would at all be necessary? Following questions therefore emerge against the backdrop of these facts for consideration of this court:- 1. Whether there should not be any time limit for completion of preliminary enquiry? 2. Whether failure of the Bureau in completing preliminary enquiry within the said time limit should not result in automatic registration of first information report? 3. What should be the outer limit within which investigation in a case should be completed by the Bureau? 4. Whether any time limit can be set for the Government to accord sanction of prosecution of public servant and if it has failed to take any appropriate view of the matter in that time limit, should the sanction then not be deemed to have been granted for prosecution? 5. Whether the requirement of holding preliminary enquiry should not be taken to have dispensed with in cases where criminal complaints are directly received from the court of competent jurisdiction for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.? 6. Whether the system of having a unitary police station at the State level with police outpost at the district level has not failed to achieve the desired purpose, and now therefore whether there should not be the parallel set up of the Bureau on the lines of civil police with at-least one duly notified police station at every district headquarters with all necessary paraphernalia and adequate staff, infrastructure with its own forensic science laboratory and latest equipments. 7. Whether in an appropriate case whether there is no apparent connection between the official duty and alleged demand of illegal gratification, requirement of obtaining sanction for prosecution should not be dispensed with or deferred to be examined from that point of view, at the time of taking cognizance?" The learned Single Judge further noted that the Division Bench was already seized with the public interest litigation petition regarding prosecution sanction and directed that the petition be separately registered as Suo Motu Writ petition (Public Interest Litigation) and be connected with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2642/2005. Hence, both are listed today and are being decided together.;