Delhi High Court – Orders
Ajay Kumar vs Cbi on 6 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~110
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 369/2026
AJAY KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, Mr.
Manoranjan Mishra, Mr. Niteen
Kumar Sinha, Advocates.
versus
CBI
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, SPP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 06.07.2026
CRL.M.A. 18975/2026 (EXEMPTION)
CRL.M.A. 18976/2026 (EXEMPTION)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 369/2026 and CRL.M.A. 18974/2026
3. The petition is for the following reliefs:
“A) Allow the present Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner
and set aside the 20.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge, (PC ACT)
(CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi in CBI Case N0.37/2025; andB) Direct the Special Judge, PC ACT (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District
Court, New Delhi to dispose of applications filed by the petitioner for
discharge/dropping of proceedings for want of valid prosecution sanction
required U/s 19 of P.C. Act, 1988 before the commencement of the trial;”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 21:01:21
4. This revision petition essentially seeks to challenge the order dated
20.03.2026 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
[“PC Act“] Central Bureau of Investigation [“CBI”] – 18, Rouse Avenue
Court, New Delhi [“the Special Judge”], whereby, the petitioner’s
application seeking discharge in CBI Case NO.37/2025 has been rejected
and charges under Section 7 of the PC Act, have been framed against him.
5. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner joined Delhi
Police as Constable on 20.03.2006 and was later promoted to rank of Head
Constable vide notification dated 21.06.2013 at Police Chowki, Raghubir
Nagar.
6. A complaint dated 29.11.2024 was lodged by one Anita Devi before
CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch. The complainant alleged that she was
engaged in lottery/Satta activities. It is her case that the accused police
officials demanded a bribe of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs for permitting her to continue
such activities. Further the petitioner along with chowki-in-charge,
participated in the demand of illegal gratification.
7. Pursuant thereto, CBI registered an FIR and organized a trap.
Following the trap, the CBI apprehended the accused persons. Upon
completion of the investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet for offences
punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and Section 61(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
8. Subsequently the prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC
Act, was granted on 27.03.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The
petitioner was promoted to the rank of Head Constable by the Commissioner
of Police.
9. The sole ground raised by the petitioner is confined to the validity of
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 21:01:21
the sanction granted under Section 19 of the PC Act.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
sanction order impugned in the present proceedings has been issued by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, whereas, the competent authority to accord
such sanction was the Commissioner of Police. It is further submitted that
the authority competent to remove the petitioner from service alone was
empowered to grant sanction for petitioner’s prosecution. Reliance is placed
on Article 311 of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PC Act to
corroborate aforesaid submission.
11. He further avers that the Special Judge erroneously deferred the
consideration of this foundation jurisdictional issue to the stage of trail,
whereas, the legality and competence of the sanction ought to have been
conclusively determined before directing the petitioner to face trail.
12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of petitioner and have perused the record.
13. A perusal of the order dated 20.03.2026, would indicate that the
Special Judge has considered the applicable rules and regulations. In
paragraph no. 40 thereof, it has come on record that a Deputy Commissioner
of Police exercises the power and performs the duties of Commissioner of
Police by virtue of Sections 6 and 8 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. As per
Section 12 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 the Deputy Commissioner of Police
is also the appointing authority for the members of the Delhi Police in the
rank of Sub-Inspector, Constable and Head-constable.
14. The order of the petitioner has been signed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police (Licensing & Provisioning) in accordance with rule
9 of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rule 1980. Even the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 21:01:21
promotion order would indicate that it is the Deputy Commissioner of Police
who has signed the same. Merely, the order of promotion has been issued
for the Commissioner of Police, does not mean that the Deputy
Commissioner of Police is denuded from exercising disciplinary power. The
Deputy Commissioner of Police has been found to have exercised his
independent power being appointing authority. The appointing authority
does not change merely because the Deputy Commissioner of Police has
signed the promotion order for the Commissioner of Police.
15. In paragraph no. 41 to 43 of the order of the Special Court is extracted
as under:
“41. It appears that the Orders of promotion relied upon by the accused
were signed by the DCP (L & P) in accordance with Rule 9 of the
promotion rules. The Orders were signed for Commissioner of Police
because as per the Delhi Police Act a DCP shall exercise such powers of
Commissioner of Police as may be specified and rule 9 is one such
specific instance where power of Commissioner of Police has been
delegated to the DCP. The DCP therefore exercises the power of
Commissioner of Police to sign the promotion order under a delegated
legislation, however, he signs the said order in his independent capacity
as appointing authority. Hence, the appointing authority does not change
merely because the DCP has signed the promotion order for
Commissioner of Police. In fact, the power of Commissioner of Police to
sign the promotion order has been delegated to the DCP under Rule 9 of
the promotion rules because as per Sec. 12 of the Delhi Police Act, DCP
is the appointing authority for police officials upto the rank of SI.
42. The plea of the accused that the DCP has signed the promotion
orders on behalf of Commissioner of Police and thus his appointing
authority is Commissioner of Police & not DCP, can be tested only
during the trial. This plea raised by the accused cannot be accepted at
the stage of charge when prima facie it appears that the promotion
orders may have been signed by the DCP for Commissioner of Police
under delegated legislation but in his own independent capacity as
appointing authority, in view of Sec. 6, 8 & 12 of the Delhi Police Act &
Rule 9 of the promotion rules.
43. Section 119 of BSA, 2023 read with illustration (e) (erstwhile Section
114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) provides that the Court may
presume that judicial and official acts were regularly performed. In viewThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 21:01:21
of this provision, a presumption that the official act of signing the
promotion order has been performed regularly as per Rule 9 of the
promotion rules, arises in favour of the prosecution that can be rebutted
by the accused only at the stage of trial.”
16. This Court in the case of Const. Satish Kumar v. State of Delhi1 in
paragraph no. 25 has held as under:
“25. Coming to the question of validity of Ext. PW6/A Sanction order and
whether the Sanction authority gave the same is valid. The sanction order
Ext. PW6/A was accorded by Vivek Gogia IPS, who was holding the position
of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police at the relevant time. A bare
reading of Section 12 and Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 makes it
clear that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police is empowered to
appoint as well as order removal from service of officers of subordinate
rank, which includes constables. Since the test under Section 19(1)(c) of the
PC Act is whether the sanctioning authority is competent to remove the
accused from office, and since that power expressly vests in the Addl. DCP
under the abovesaid statute, Vivek Gogia IPS was fully competent to accord
sanction vide Ext. PW6/A Sanction order.”
17. The aforesaid enunciation of law lends support to prima facie view
taken by the Special Judge. The validity of prosecution sanction cannot be
assailed merely on the ground that the promotion order was issued for the
Commissioner of Police. Once the statutory scheme recognises the Deputy
Commissioner of Police as the appointing and disciplinary authority for
police officials up to the rank of Sub-Inspector, the sanction accorded by
such authority cannot, at this stage, be held to be without jurisdiction. This
Court does not find the said view to be ex facie contrary to the statutory
scheme so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
18. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to raise all the issues
during the course of the trial. This aspect can further be looked into by the
Special Court during the course of trial.
1
2026:DHC:3512
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 21:01:21
19. With the aforesaid observations finding no justification to interfere at
this stage, the instant revision petition fails and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 6, 2026
Aks/ss
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 21:01:21
