Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has observed that a trial court cannot direct an investigating agency, including the CBI, to obtain prosecution sanction against a public servant, holding that such an order is impermissible in law.This observation was made by Justice Raj Beer Singh while allowing a quashing petition filed by former Saharanpur district magistrate Pawan Kumar, challenging an order of the special judge, CBI, Ghaziabad, refusing to accept a CBI closure report and directing the agency to obtain prosecution sanction against him in connection with the alleged illegal renewal of sand mining leases in Saharanpur.The court allowed the petition filed by Kumar and set aside the order of the special judge, CBI. Kumar is presently posted as director in the department of rural development, DelhiThe court accepted the CBI closure report against him and quashed the proceedings.An FIR was registered following a preliminary enquiry into the alleged illegal renewal of 13 sand mining leases in Saharanpur.After investigation, the CBI filed a closure report concluding that the allegations against Kumar could not be substantiated and that no material indicating criminal conspiracy, cheating or abuse of official position had been found against him.However, the special judge refused to accept the closure report. While taking cognisance against several private accused, the trial court also directed the CBI to obtain sanction for prosecuting Pawan Kumar under the Prevention of Corruption Act.While challenging this order, the former DM moved the high court, arguing that he had merely acted in the discharge of his official duties and, pursuant to the directions issued by the state government, had collected factual reports from subordinate authorities and forwarded them to the government. It was his stand that he had no role in making any recommendation, approval or independent opinion regarding the renewal of the mining leases.It was further contended that the govt alone was the competent authority to decide the issue of renewal and that no second renewal lease deed was ever executed because of an interim order passed by the high court.The CBI, on the other hand, argued that the petition under Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable, as the applicant had not yet been summoned and the trial court had merely directed the agency to obtain prosecution sanction.While rejecting this preliminary objection, the high court observed that since the trial court had opined that a prima facie case existed against the applicant and had issued a direction to secure prosecution sanction, the impugned order adversely affected his rights. The court also said that the trial court’s direction appeared to be contrary to law. Hence, the single judge found the petition under Section 482 CrPC to be maintainable.On the merits of the case, the high court noted that the material collected during the CBI investigation showed that the applicant had merely sought reports from subordinate officials as directed by the state govt and forwarded those reports without any alteration, recommendation or opinion. There was nothing on record to indicate that he had submitted any false or misleading report or recommended renewal of the leases.Justice Singh, in a judgment dated July 15, observed that the special judge had failed to identify any material showing misconduct, abuse of official position or participation in any criminal conspiracy.
