Sachin Ahlawat v. Central Bureau Of Investigation
!"#$#
!"!%"& !"'#$#
' () *# *
+ )
!" #$ !"
%"
&' ! " (
))))
+ ),# *
+
,-. #"-/-0$12
3 '' *0 /- -/-,45
(*6
7 46" $ "8 " 9# //,-/-*//*: -.
/;
-/-*45 (-6
< 4 = =6 > ' ?"# 2*/2-/--
# # 8 &(/*(//:./<(-/--" '' ''
*-/(
*%-./
/!"
!" 0123!340
4/4/!"
-
@
' *0 /- -/-,"
3 $
'' "' ' '
'
+ $3 *A '
@
'
3 $
"
'
' ' '
*A
@ " '
' '
"'
9" B ' " " *A
8 " '
" ' ' " ' " "
"
'' 5 5 (:
:
'
" +
"3 $ <
+ '
$ *-/(
,
@ '
" 0/ ** -/--45
(06"
( '" "!+" $ ''
<
+
'
+ *-/(
;
+" 3 $ < " " % ( <
'
% '" '
5' ' " ' '
C " *;
:: (
'' ' %
1 '
+ " '
"
5 "
' %
$ @ " " D
'
+ $3" ''
*%-./
/!"
!" 0123!340
5!"
"4 .
" ''
' '
+ % $3 *-/( " '
" "
'
'
*A
1 $3
"
" % ' 8= ' #*
"/ 1 1
67 #
0*01 .11"
1"!40
'9: 9 /./"12:;<, "
*/
E
*A
'
" ' '
'
" '
' ' 3
' " " $ ' " 3
**
@ '
' "
' ' '
"
' " ' " "
" ' 1 "
*-
C1
' *-/( $ 91 "
'
F 1
5 '' < "
"
< ' "
<
F
1 "
'
G
*- " *414 !3" 0
0 7 # +1" /.1221 *%--1/10 ' =< *%5
.
!% $> *01 18 / 7 # *414 !3 +1 "14181 ' $9:
9 /./"12:1" ?16@@1 A127 # "/!"!3" /1'==9:
9 /./"12:$#
*
*0
'
*:
+1 E D ' " *A.. 5
'
D ' *-/( " %
''
*,
+ H
0/ ** -/-- '' < '
( ' ' *A
'
'
'
5 " ''' ** /* -/-:
5 5 (, *;
Despite the statutory embargo under Section 19 of the PC Act, the CBI now seeks to prosecute the petitioner solely for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. As admitted by the learned standing counsel for the CBI, the alleged conspiracy pertains exclusively to the purported demand for illegal gratification-an offence that squarely falls within the ambit of Section 7 of the PC Act. In essence, the object of the alleged conspiracy is an offence for which prosecution stands barred due to the express denial of sanction. *<
It is a settled principle of law that while conspiracy constitutes an independent offence under the IPC, it cannot be assessed in isolation from its object. The viability of a conspiracy charge is inextricably tied to the lawfulness of the act sought to be achieved. Where the object of the alleged conspiracy is an offence for which the law prohibits prosecution-such as under the PC Act in the absence of valid sanction-the ancillary charge of conspiracy cannot independently survive.
18.
It needs to be reiterated that the statutory protection under
; Section 19 of the PC Act is not a procedural technicality but a substantive safeguard conferred upon public servants. Once the competent authority, after due application of mind to the material submitted by the investigating agency, declines to grant sanction, the embargo under Section 19(1) becomes operative and bars the court from taking cognizance of the offence.
*A
In the present case, the foundation of the alleged conspiracy rests entirely on an offence under the PC Act. With sanction expressly refused by the competent authority, to which no challenge has been made by the prosecuting agency, any attempt to prosecute the petitioner for conspiracy alone-when the object of that conspiracy is itself legally non-prosecutable-amounts to a colourable exercise of power. It constitutes a clear attempt to achieve indirectly what the law prohibits directly, thereby undermining the statutory mandate and rendering the protection under Section 19 illusory. -/
+
*414 !3" 0 1
07 #+1" /.1221*%--1/10'
=< *%5
.
!% 4 $> *01 18 / 7 # *414 !3 +1 "14181'$9: 9 /./"12:1" ?16@@1 A127 #
"/!"!3" /1 ==9: 9 /./"12:$ '
5
' " % ' 8= ' #*
"/ 1 1
6( &1
9 %5 1: 1
#*
"/ 1 1
6( &1
9 %5 1:,
=
"
:-/":;<":;. :<* + " "
"
-*
'
#
' 9 "
<
+' ' %
--
8= ' '
5 # *
"/ 1 1
6( &1
9 %5 1:
( ! " #$ %#$&&
" #$ %#$&&
'
(
)
%#$&&
( )*
+
'
*
( *
'
, -0
+ 8= '
'
5 5 1 "
%
-:
' ' '
8= ' 1 1"1 /--% 7 # /
&4!
!3"3!
& .
"4'9:*=,
' *-/( '
+ 5 @ 4 @6" 1
E '
" 1
-,
" "
' "
C
" ' 5 '
( ' " *;
:: 5 "
1 ' '
' "
" ( #--(
" .
" + /
0 " " 1
(
0 "
1" 0 *
/ 2
.
"
(
"/ 2
%
".
"
0 "
/ 2
0 "
"/ 2 % 0 " + "/ 2 "1
(
*
0 "
(
!
"#
, -;
'% "" +' "> ? "
' ' ' ''
" *-/("
+ ' 5 '
-<
+" 1 D "
' 5 "
D' '
+
' $ *-/( ' 5 ' *A
-.
(
*-/( '' " "
*A
'
*-/( "
1'
+ '
3 ' +
' " *:
'' " %
1 '
" ' $
' -A
0/
" " ' *A "
" " " " % ''
0*
+ "
' " " '
" ' 1
#$# 4
+ )6
E $2 I2# E I2#