Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Oct 25: High Court dismissed the plea filed by the Forest Officer (FO) challenging an FIR against him and others for hatching conspiracy with a timber businessman in smuggling Government timber.
The Forest Officer-Farooq Ahmad Lone has been found accused with other officials of the forest Department for hatching conspiracy with a timber businessman for smuggling of Government timber from block office Handwara.
Accused-Lone has also challenged the sanction order for prosecuting him for commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act after filing of FIR against him by the Anticorruption Bureau (ACB) on the ground that the authority who has issued sanction order against him was not competent to pass such order.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal while rejecting the said argument of the counsel representing the petitioner-Lone recorded that whatever the defence he has, he can raise the same during the trial in the event charges are framed against him.
“The disputed questions of facts cannot be considered while adjudicating a writ petition challenging the validity of FIR and sanction accorded for prosecution of the petitioner. In view of the above, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner, as such the same is, accordingly, rejected”, Court replied.
The second contention raised by the petitioner counsel was that once the higher authority of the officer who has issued sanction order had sought sanction for prosecuting the petitioner and other officers for commission of offences under the PC Act, the sanction authority could not have granted the sanction for prosecuting him for commission of offences punishable PC Act.
Justice Oswal said this argument also deserves to be rejected solely on the ground that the sanctioning authority is not supposed to act as a post office as it is expected to apply its mind on the allegations levelled against the delinquent employee and is not bound by the findings of the Investigating Officer.
The sanctioning authority, court added, has to independently evaluate the material placed before it for the purpose of grant or refusal of the sanction and the sanctioning authority has mentioned in detail the allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused and then only the sanction order has been issued to prosecute the petitioner and other co-accused, after due application of mind.
The last contention raised by the petitioner was that separate sanction was required to be granted for prosecuting the petitioner under the Ranbir Penal Code and Forest Act, as the sanctioning authority was not competent to grant sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under the P.C. Act and J&K Forest Act.
“There is no doubt that a public servant, who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government or the Government of India, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, cannot be prosecuted without there being any sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Cr. P. C. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the J&K Forest Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by a Forest Officer while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties except with the previous sanction of the Government”, Court replied.
The court viewed thus and found the petition without merit and accordingly dismissed the same leaving the petitioner free to agitate his defence before the trial court.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel