TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssailed the impugned orders on the following principal grounds:- (i) that cognizance has been taken in violation of the mandatory preconditions contemplated under Section 19 of the PC Act, and Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., despite denial of sanction by the competent authority; (ii) that the alleged acts were committed while discharging official duties as a public servant, and thus fall within the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.; (iii) that offences under the IPC now invoked are inseparably linked to the allegations under the PC Act, and in the absence of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, no valid prosecution can be sustained even under the IPC; (iv) that the order taking cognizance lacks application of mind and is merely a mechanical reproduction of the narrative contained in the chargesheet. 3. Learned counsel has submitted that the allegations pertain to the seizure, handling, and alleged tampering of hard disk, obtained during an authorised search under the Income Tax Act. The proposal for prosecution sanction, covering Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 201 of the IPC, was consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rosecution under the provisions of IPC is in accordance with the provisions of law and unaffected by the refusal of sanction under the PC Act. It has been pointed out that the refusal dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) was confined solely to the offences under the PC Act and did not encompass or bar prosecution under the provisions of IPC. It has still further been urged that the proposal for sanction was considered by the competent authority only in the context of offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has still further submitted that the prosecution under IPC is based on distinct and substantive offences, including forgery, destruction of evidence, criminal breach of trust, and cheating, all of which are supported by specific forensic evidence. It has been vehemently submitted that the CFSL report reveals a mismatch between the hash values of the original and resealed hard disk and establishes that critical data was deliberately deleted during the period it remained in the custody of the petitioner. It has been further contended that images of official documents recovered from the personal mobile device of the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2022, CBI has stated that Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the then DDIT (Iny) Unit-II, Gurugruin, Sh, Anand Jain MD of M/s Indo Auto Tech Ltd, Sh. Sudhir Choudhary CA & Sh. Parrieep Kumar lindal by their act and omissions constitute the offences punishable u/s 120-B, 201, 409, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and u/s 13(2) t/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Ayt, 1988, The CBI, ACB, Chandigarh has requested necessary sanction of the competent authority under section 19 of PC Act 1988 (as amended in 2018). 3. On examining the CBI report along with material available on record and after consultation with the CVC, Competent authority does not agree with the proposal of the CBI, ACB, Chandigarh for granting of sanction for prosecution in the case of Sh. Rajesh Kumar (09122), the then DDIT (Inv.) Unit-II, Gurugram." (b) A plain reading of the above makes it evident that the refusal was limited to prosecution under the PC Act. The proposal considered was one seeking sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, and the decision was rendered accordingly. No decision was taken on, nor was any sought, under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under IPC. (c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Sreenivasa ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without merit. The acts alleged- tampering with digital evidence, deletion of official records, and resealing a forensic device with altered content-are not acts that can be said to have been committed in the discharge of official duty, but rather in derogation of it. (c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where a public servant is accused of acts that are not in furtherance of, but contrary to, the lawful discharge of official duties, the bar under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. does not apply. (d) This Court, while dealing with a similar contention in CRR-1306-2020 titled as 'Rajeev Arora Vs. CBI' decided on 15.05.2025, held as under :- "63. Coming next to the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., in the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has rightly observed that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not a prerequisite for prosecuting a public servant for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC. The reasoning offered is rooted in the intrinsic nature of the offence of cheating, which, by its very character, is incapable of being committed by a public servant in the discharge or purported....