# Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 448
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-06
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mohd. Tahir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43650
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(then ADM City, Allahabad) under Sections 218/120-B IPC and 13(2) PC Act for allegedly cancelling, then
collusively restoring, firearm licences - Held, sanctioning authority need only be prima facie satisfied on
material placed; impugned order records consideration of allegations, material and evidence and satisfaction
to prosecute; court cannot re-assess adequacy of material or insist on detailed reasoning; no requirement to
await charge-sheet before granting sanction. (Paras 1-3, 6-8, 12-15, 17)

Writ Dismissed - No infirmity in sanction; writ petition dismissed with direction to Investigating Officer to
file police report under Section 173(2) CrPC within one month; compliance directions issued to Chief Secretary
and S.P., CBCID. (Paras 17-20)

Case Law discussed:

## Text

448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Consequently, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. TAHIR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 7362 Of 2016

Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Imran Syed

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Sanction for Prosecution - Writ challenging Governor's sanction dated 2.3.2016 for prosecuting petitioner
(then ADM City, Allahabad) under Sections 218/120-B IPC and 13(2) PC Act for allegedly cancelling, then
collusively restoring, firearm licences - Held, sanctioning authority need only be prima facie satisfied on
material placed; impugned order records consideration of allegations, material and evidence and satisfaction
to prosecute; court cannot re-assess adequacy of material or insist on detailed reasoning; no requirement to
await charge-sheet before granting sanction. (Paras 1-3, 6-8, 12-15, 17)

Writ Dismissed - No infirmity in sanction; writ petition dismissed with direction to Investigating Officer to
file police report under Section 173(2) CrPC within one month; compliance directions issued to Chief Secretary
and S.P., CBCID. (Paras 17-20)

Case Law discussed:

1. State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119
2. CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, AIR 2014 SC 827

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 2nd
March, 2016 passed by the State Government. A mandamus is also sought for restraining the
respondents from prosecuting the petitioner in pursuance of the alleged investigation carried out by
the CBCID.
4 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
449
2. Brief facts of the case is that in the year 2010, the petitioner was posted as Additional
District Magistrate (City), Allahabad and he was exercising the power of Prescribed Authority
under Section 17 of the Arms Act. As such, the petitioner issued a notice for cancellation of two
firearm licenses, namely, revolver bearing licence no.551 of 1983 and rifle bearing licence no1205
belonging to one Ram Kishore Yadav. It is alleged that on 6.4.2010, an order was passed by the
petitioner that "arguments have been concluded and licences have been cancelled" which was also
found on the order sheet of case no.56 of 2010 and 57 of 2010, but thereafter the matter was again
posted on 13.4.2010 "For Orders" and the same was kept pending for a long time. On 27.5.2011,
the said arms licences of Ram Kishore Yadav were restored by the petitioner in a collusive manner
though the licences of the said two arms were cancelled by him on 6.4.2010.

3. One Vinay Kumar, who was alleged to be a stranger to the proceeding and was not a
licensee of the said firearms, filed a Writ Petition No.40817 of 2011 (Vinay Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and others) before this Court challenging the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the petitioner
initiated under the Arms Act against Ram Kishore Yadav, the licensee, and a plea of locus-standi
was also raised by Ram Kishore Yadav before Writ Court, which dismissed the said writ petition
vide order dated 14.10.2011 on the ground of non-maintainability of the petition at the instance of
Vinay Kumar, but suo-motu taking into account the allegation levelled against the petitioner,
ordered the State Government to make proper inquiry in the matter and the circumstances in which
the order dated 27.5.2011 was passed by him and further directed the Chief Secretary, U.P.
Government to enquire the matter either through Vigilance Establishment or through CBCID and
submit report by 16.1.2012.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 14.10.2011, the petitioner preferred a Special
Appeal No.616 of 2014 (Pradeep Kumar and Another Vs. Vinay Kumar and 8 Others), in which a
Division Bench of this Court on 1.9.2014 was pleased to direct that as an interim measure, further
proceedings in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40817 of 2011 which has already been disposed of on
14.10.2011, shall remain stayed.

5. Thereafter, Vinay Kumar further preferred a Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 25128 of 2015
before this Court, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.6.2015 directing
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad to conduct a fair and impartial investigation in the
matter. Thereafter Vinay Kumar again preferred Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 29597 of 2015 (Vinay
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others), in which orders were passed on regular intervals by the
Division Bench of this Court which was monitoring the investigation of the case in pursuance of
the FIR dated 20.7.2014 which was registered as Case Crime No.766 of 2014, under Section
218/120B I.P.C. and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Colonelganj,
District Allahabad against the petitioner.

6. As the petitioner was a public servant, hence, the competent authority His Excellency the
Governor of the State gave sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in pursuance of the FIR dated
20.7.2014 lodged against him vide order dated 2.3.2016. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the present writ petition has bee filed by the
petitioner for quashing of the same.

7. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Imran Syed, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused
the record.

8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not assail the
orders of this Court passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.29597 of 2015 or any other
orders and only submitted that that though the sanction has been granted for prosecution of the
petitioner by the competent authority, but the sanction order does not disclose the reason or
application of mind for prosecution of the petitioner. He further submits that the investigation is
still in progress and the sanction has been granted and till date no charge sheet has been submitted.
He further argued that law regarding grant of sanction for prosecution is well settled. He submitted
that as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been repeatedly stated that sanctioning
authority has to apply its mind to the documents on record and has to spell out reasons necessitating
grant of sanction.

9. He urged that on a cursory perusal of the impugned order would demonstrate that the
sanctioning authority has only recited the facts as stated by the CBCID and thereafter it has
mechanically granted sanction. Therefore the sanction granted by the authority is non-est.

10. He further contended that the impugned order granting sanction being absolutely
illegal, non-speaking, the same is devoid of any legal sanctity and is, therefore, illegal and
unsustainable in law, hence, the same should be set aside. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in
AIR 2014 SC 827, C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & (2013) 8 SCC 119, State of Maharashtra
through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mahesh G. Jain.

11. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the payer for quashing of the impugned order and
vehemently rebutted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
from perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that sanctioning authority has granted sanction
for prosecution of the petitioner after considering all the materials on record which was placed
before it by the State Government and after perusing the same, it has accorded sanction for
prosecution of the petitioner, hence, there is no illegality in the order granting sanction for
prosecution of the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

12. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

13. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is a public servant and he was posted as the District
Magistrate (City), Allahabad at the relevant point of time when he heard the case for cancellation of
two firearm licenses, namely, revolver bearing licence no.551 of 1983 and rifle bearing licence
4 All. Pradeep Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
451
no.1205 belonging to one Ram Kishore Yadav and it has been stated that on 6.4.2010 after hearing
argument, the two firearm licneces of the said licensee was cancelled by him and the said order was
found in the order sheet of the two cases, i.e., case no.56 of 2010 and 57 of 2010. Subsequently, on
13.4.2010 the case was again put up "For Orders" and the matter was kept pending for several
months and the licences of two firearms of the said licnesee was restored by the petitioner, though
he has cancelled the licences of the said two firearms on 6.4.2010. As the petitioner is a public
servant, hence, in order to launch prosecution against him, a valid sanction is required from the
competent authority for his prosecution. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 2.3.2016
passed by the competent authority granting sanction for his prosecution in the present case,
specially para-3 of the said order shows that considering the allegations which have been levelled
against the petitioner, the State Government after considering the entire material on record along
with all the complete evidences was satisfied that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted in
pursuance of the FIR dated 20.7.2014 which was registered as Case Crime No.766 of 2014, under
Section 218/120B I.P.C. and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station
Colonelganj, District Allahabad before the Court of competent jurisdiction and has accorded
sanction for prosecuting the petitioner.

14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sanctioning authority
has not applied its mind, nor has perused the documents and other relevant material on record
before grant of sanction does not have any substance, as the competent authority has applied its
mind while passing the impugned oder and has given valid reason for grant of sanction for
prosecution of the petitioner. Moreover, the case law which has been cited by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in the case of State of Maharashtra through Central Bureau of Investigation
(supra) in which the Apex Court has held :

"Grant of sanction is sacrosanct act and is intended to provide safeguard to a
public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Grant of sanction is only an
administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the
satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence. Satisfaction of the sanctioning
authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction.

It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been
granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made
out. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material
placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances , has granted sanction for
prosecution. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed
before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material
placed before it. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and
some of them have not been proved that wold not vitiate the order of sanction.

The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone
into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. An order of sanction should
not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of
mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to
become tools in the hands of an accused."

15. Hence, the said case does not help the petitioner as the impugned order is inconsonance with law settled by the Apex Court.

16. Moreover, the case law which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
the case of C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the proposition of law which has been
enunciated in the said case law also cannot be disputed, but the facts of th present case is
distinguishable from the facts of the said case. Hence, the same cannot be made applicable in the
present case.

17. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any flaw in the impugned
order dated 2.3.2016 passed by the State Government granting sanction for prosecution of the
petitioner. The petition lacks merit. It is accordingly, dismissed.

18. As the case is of the year 2010 and the FIR has been lodged in the year 2014, the
Investigating Officer is directed the submit police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the
competent Court within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order
before him by the petitioner.

19. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned AGA free of cost for its compliance.

20. The Registrar General shall send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, State of
U.P. and S.P., CBCID, Circle Allahabad for its compliance.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J.

Matters Under Article 227 No.- 7414 Of 2015

Ashish Kumar Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Ankita Srivastava ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddhartha Varma, Anup Kumar Srivastava, S.K. Varma

Counsel for the Respondent: