D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 621/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT Nanalal Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 621/2010 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8617/2010 Date of Judgment : 03.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr. R.S. Choudhary for the appellant Mr. I.S. Pareek – Government Counsel BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE JOSHI,J) In this intra court appeal, challenge has been made by appellant Nanalal to the order dated 24.09.2010 passed by learned Single Bench of this court, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that complainant Krishna Kumar Pancholi submitted a complainant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Railmagra, which was sent to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Railmagra under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation. It is alleged in the complaint that on Page 1 of 5 D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 621/2010 18.12.2008, Tehsildar ordered to open mutation and consequently mutation No. 335 was opened and registered, which was accepted by Tehsildar Railmagra on 29.12.2008. All this happened due to a wrong report made by accused Nanalal, Patwari, Patwar Mandal, Khada Mania, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand. On the basis of it, police registered a case and started investigation. It was found that a case under Section 166, 167 and 477-A IPC was prima facie proved against the appellant. The Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand sought permission for prosecution under the relevant provisions and the District Collector, Rajsamand vide order dated 13.09.2010 accorded sanction for prosecution under Section 166, 167, 477-A IPC. The appellant challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 13.09.2010 by filing writ petition before the learned Single Bench of this court and the learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition while observing that the order challenged by the appellant cannot be said to be malafide or without any foundation. Learned Single Judge further observed that the allegations and charges against the appellant-petitioner had to be decided by regular criminal court and the appellant- petitioner cannot be refused to face trial on the basis of allegations made against him and the order sanctioning the prosecution in question cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary Page 2 of 5 D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 621/2010 and illegal in any manner. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that a typed copy of the sanction order was provided to the District Collector, Rajsamand by the Assistant Director Prosecution, District Rajsamand and the District Collector simply filled in some blank portions and issued the prosecution sanction order dated 13.09.2010, thus, this order was passed without application of mind and if any order is passed by the competent authority for prosecution of a public servant without application of mind, it is illegal and improper. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3400. Per contra, learned Government Counsel vehemently defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 24.09.2010 has observed that the order sanctioning prosecution in question cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or illegal in any manner and worth of allegations and charges against the appellant-petitioner have to be tested and tried by a regular criminal court. Page 3 of 5 D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 621/2010 We have gone through the entire record of the case and considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no doubt about the legal principle that the sanctioning authority shall have to apply its own mind and he cannot give such sanction by merely obeying the directions of some other body or forum, as were the facts in the case cited before us. To the contrary, perusal of the material before us including the order vide which the District Collector issued sanction, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the same is in no way perverse, arbitrary or illegal order. The letter which was sent to the District Collector cannot be said to have been simply reproduced and it appears that the District Collector has applied its mind to the case in hand and even he heard the appellant before passing the order sanctioning prosecution. A bare perusal of the order passed by District Collector and the proforma sent to his office clearly shows that both the documents are in different language and it is not verbatim reproduction of the facts contained in the proforma. In view of the discussion made above, the order dated 24.09.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge does not Page 4 of 5 D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 621/2010 suffer from any illegality, impropriety or irregularity and it deserves to be affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant Nanalal is dismissed at the admission stage with no order as to costs. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J. [ARUN MISHRA],CJ. Pramod Page 5 of 5