1. Petitioner Ravi Shankar Srivastava is an IAS Officer, (RJ:1985) Batch who has worked on different posts. At the time when the F.I.R. was lodged
he was working as Member, Board of Revenue, Ajmer. Complaint was lodged with regard to his disproportionate income for period 1985 to 2004.
Sanction was accorded by the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and thereafter sanction was sought from the Union of India and Union of
India vide order dated 21.04.2011, accorded the sanction. The Court below vide order dated 11.09.2017, has taken cognizance against the petitioner,
aggrieved by which the present revision petition has been filed.
 2. Petitioner Ravi Shankar Srivastava is present in person in Court. It is contended by the petitioner Ravi Shankar Srivastava that sanction was not
accorded by due application of mind, as the record of the case was with the High Court.
3. It is also contended that Under Secretary to the Government of India has signed the sanction order. He was not authorized to sign the same in the
name of President of India.
4. It is also contended that the investigation was not done by the competent Officer, as per Section 17 last proviso of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the present revision petition. Learned Additional Advocate
General has contends that as many as three F.I.Rs. under the Prevention of Corruption Act were lodged against the petitioner bearing numbers
109/2004, 110/2004 & 264/2004.
6. It is also contended by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner had filed writ petition challenging the sanction issued by the Union of
India which fact is denied by the petitioner who is present in person in Court. It is stated by petitioner Ravi Shankar Srivastava that he has preferred
revision petitions and writ petitions pertaining to F.I.Rs. No. 109/2004 & 110/2004 and he has not preferred any writ petition with regard to F.I.R.
No.264/2004.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General has also drawn my attention towards the order passed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur
Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.422/2018 dated 22.05.2018, wherein the Division Bench observed that in future the appellant should not
misuse the Court proceedings otherwise Court would be competent to punish him for misusing the Court proceedings.
8. I have considered the contentions and have perused the judgments cited by the petitioner.
9. From perusal of the sanction order dated 21.04.2011, it is revealed that the entire set of documents which were required for according sanction
were before the Sanctioning Authority and the same has been referred in detail in the order which is running in about 40 pages.
10. The contention that material was not considered by Sanctioning Authority has no force.
11. The order dated 21.04.2011 has been signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India by order and in the name of the President. As to
whether the Under Secretary to the 7 Government of India was authorized by the President of India, cannot be seen at this stage as a document
which is issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India and which mentions that it has been issued by order and in the name of the
President of India, the same is presumed to be correct and at the stage of cognizance the Court is not required to go into such matters.
12. Apex Court in ""C.B.I vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,"" ""Criminal Appeal No.1838/2013"", decided on 31.10.2013, laid down the legal propositions with
regard to the sanction orders. The Hon'ble Apex held that in every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the Court by a leading
evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning Authority and the Authority had applied its mind.
13. From document dated 24.05.2007, addressed to Additional Secretary (S & V) Government of India documents which are mentioned include
relevant File No.2 (1)(154) DOP/A 3/06 (Page 1 to 106/c) along with note portion (Para 1-5/N), hence, the contention that relevant material was not
considered cannot be accepted.
14. Petitioner before this Court has stated wrong fact with regard to not filing any writ petition before the High Court, it is not accepted of an Officer
of IAS Rank to state wrong facts in the Court. The fact that he had preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.475/2017 (Ravi Shankar Srivastava vs. Union
of India & Anr.) is apparent from file which is annexed with the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner in which order dated
21.04.2011 passed by Under Secretary to the Government of India.
15. The matter is pending before the Court for last 14 years and petitioner has been misusing process of Court by filing frivolous litigation. He has
been cautioned by the Division Bench of not misusing the process of Court. Court below has taken cognizance on the basis of materials which were
placed before it. The matter pertains to disproportionate assets to the tune of more than Rs.2 Crore and with an aim to stall the proceedings, petitioner
has filed the present revision petition as well as writ petition on similar grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders so as to exercise the
revisional jurisdiction.
 16. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- and Court below is directed to expedite the trial.
