Don't Need Sanction To Prosecute Private Person: ED Opposes M3M Director's Plea To Quash FIR In Trial Judge Bribery Case

The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday opposed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court the petition filed by M3M Director Roop Bansal, seeking to quash a criminal case launched against him for conspiring to bribe a trial court judge, citing lack of sanction to prosecute under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Bansal is accused under Sections 7,8,11,13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

Ordinarily, prior approval/ sanction from a competent authority is required before Police can conduct an inquiry or investigation into alleged offenses committed by public servants related to their official functions.

Bansal claims that a person can't be prosecuted under Section 120-B for conspiracy alone and he has to be prosecuted alongside the judge. However, there was no sanction under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the judge allegedly involved in the bribery and thus, the entire case is vitiated.

Opposing this claim, Senior Panel Counsel Zoheb Hossain appearing along with Senior Panel Counsel for UOI Lokesh Narang for ED submitted that plea of lack of sanction cannot be raised by Bansal, who is a private individual and not a public servant.

Furthermore, it was submitted that even assuming without admitting, if a public servant cannot be prosecuted for want of sanction, it does not ipso facto mean that the prosecution against private individuals for aiding and abetting the offences alleged under the PC Act or the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC ceases to exist.

After Chief Justice Sheel Nagu recused from hearing the matter as he had dealt with it on administrative side, Bansal's plea seeking quashing of FIR was listed today before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.

As Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing through VC for Bansal sought an adjournment due to network issues, the Court posted the case for final arguments on July 30.

During the hearing Senior Panel Counsel Zoheb Hossain appearing along with Senior Panel Counsel for UOI Lokesh Narang for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submitted that the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned FIR on the ground that previous approval of the Governor under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has not been taken before registering an FIR in relation to an Additional District Judge, cannot be raised by the petitioner herein who is the private individual and not the concerned public servant.

Therefore, the petitioner "lacks locus standi" so, file the present petition on the aforesaid ground.

Furthermore, it was submitted that, even assuming without admitting, if a public servant cannot be prosecuted for want of sanction, it does not ipso facto mean that the prosecution against private individuals for aiding and abetting the offences alleged under the PC Act or the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC ceases to exist, added Hussain.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing through VC for Bansal intervened that he should be given opportunity on another day because when he tried to intervene during the arguments he could not do so due to network issues in Supreme Court, where he was currently sitting.

Considering the request, the Court adjourned the case to July 30 for final arguments.

It is pertinent to note that the present FIR for quashing was firstly listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023. After change in roster, the matter was listed before Justice N.S Shekhawat who recused from hearing the case. The matter was then listed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, before whom Bansal sought withdrawal of the case.

Case Tite: ROOP BANSAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.