Haryana govt denies prosecution sanction, IAS officer discharged in corruption case

Recently, the ACB informed the Panchkula court that the competent authority had declined to accord prosecution sanction against Dahiya, paving the way for his discharge in the case.

The public prosecutor also submitted that in view of the refusal of prosecution sanction, which is a statutory prerequisite under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the ACB is not inclined to present the challan against the accused in the case.

In his order on Saturday, Panchkula Additional Sessions Judge Bikramjit Aroura said: “It is well-settled that sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences alleged against a public servant for acts done in discharge of official duties. In the absence of a valid prosecution sanction, the Court is legally barred from proceeding further against such accused.”

The court further said: “Since the competent authority has expressly declined to grant prosecution sanction against accused Vijay Singh Dahiya, IAS, continuation of criminal proceedings against him would be an exercise in futility and contrary to the statutory mandate. Consequently, accused Vijay Singh Dahiya, IAS, is hereby discharged in the present case arising out of FIR…for the offences under Sections 7, 7A, 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 384 and 120-B IPC.”

However, the court clarified that the discharge of Dahiya is confined solely to the refusal of prosecution sanction against him and shall not preclude the prosecution from proceeding in accordance with law in the event of a valid sanction being granted in future, if so permissible. It shall not be construed as a determination on the merits of the case or as extending any benefit to the other co-accused; proceedings qua the remaining co-accused, if any, shall continue in accordance with law, subject to fulfilment of statutory requirements.”

A few months ago too, the state government had refused to permit prosecution of an IAS officer in a separate corruption case apart from refusing similar sanction against four IAS officers in alleged irregularities involving civil works carried out by the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad (MCF) a few years ago.