In the aforesaid judgment, reference has been made to a
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand
Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 153, wherein it has been
observed as under:-
“33. What follows from the aforesaid
discussion is that appropriate authority who on consideration of all the
material had refused to accord sanction to prosecute a public servant,
has no power on re-consideration to review such an order and thereby
according sanction to prosecute on the same material.
It will be a
totally different situation, if any additional/fresh/new material is brought
before the competent authority; that admittedly is not the situation in all
the three cases nor is the case of any one of the respondents set out in
their replies. Similarly, the long gap after completion of investigation
and the grant of sanction is an additional ground to grant relief to the
petitioners in all these three cases.”
In the light of the above discussion and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, no ground is
made out to interfere in the impugned orders.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.8271 of 2012
Date of decision : 02.08.2014
Tirath Singh
versus
State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Citation;2014 CRLJ 4636 P&H
The petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the letter dated 03.03.2008 (Anexure P-4), passed by the
Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala-respondent No.2 and letter dated
31.03.2008 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Fatehgarh Sahib-respondent No.3, whereby sanction granted for
prosecution has been withdrawn.
Smt. Paramjit Kaur, wife of Tirath Singh-petitioner inherited
property from her father in village Rurki, District Fatehgarh Sahib. She
made an application to Mohan Singh, Halqa Pawari, Rurki, for
sanctioning mutation in her favour, who demanded bribe of Rs.5000/-,
from the petitioner, which was later on reduced to Rs.4000/-.
The
petitioner contacted one Avtar Singh son of Harnek Singh and they made
Civil Writ Petition No.8271 of 2012
2
an attempt to get the said Patwari arrested. The petitioner went to the
office of Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, after collecting Rs.4000/- with Avtar
Singh ad narrated the entire story.
Thereafter, FIR No.9 dated
01.02.2006, under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered at Police Station, Vigilance
Bureau, Patiala (Anexure P-1). The raiding party conducted a raid in the
office of Halqa Patwari, Rurki, from where Mohan Singh was caught red
handed and bribe of Rs.4000/- was recovered from his possession. After
investigation, the Vigilance department recorded the statements of the
witnesses and sought sanction for prosecution against aforesaid Mohan
Singh from the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib-respondent
No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP no.16758 of 2006 before this
Court, for giving direction to respondent No.3 to give final sanction to
prosecute Mohan Sigh, Halqa Patwari. The said petition was disposed
of by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2006 by giving a direction to
respondent No.3 to take a final decision in the matter of grant of final
sanction.
Thereafter, vide order dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-2),
respondent No.3 declined to grant sanction of prosecution against
Mohan Singh, Patwari.
This order was challenged by the petitioner
before this Court by filing CWP No.6281 of 2007. After notice, a detailed
reply was filed by the Vigilance Bureau, stating that a parallel enquiry
had been conducted by the DSP, Nabha.
Respondent No.3, without
examining the report of the Vigilance Bureau, had declined to grant
sanction to prosecution Mohan Singh. Several reminders were sent by
the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, stating that no parallel
could be conducted and sanction to prosecute Mohan Singh sought.
Civil Writ Petition No.8271 of 2012
3
During the pendency of the said petition, respondent No.3 passed an
order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3) granting sanction to prosecute.
Consequently, the said petition became infructuous and was disposed of
on 08.10.2007.
Mohan Singh, Patwari, filed CRM No. M-46187 of 2007 for
quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as the order dated 03.09.2007
(Annexure P-3). During the pendency of said petition, respondent No.2
vide order dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure P-4) directed respondent No.3 to
withdraw his order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3).
Thereafter,
respondent No.3, vide order dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure P-5), withdrew
his order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3) and restored his earlier order
dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner has challenged both
the orders dated 03.03.2008 and 31.03.2008 (Annexures P-4 and P-5).
In the written statement, filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and
4, the factual position is admitted, as stated in the petition. It has been
stated that the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, vide letter dated
10.05.2010, had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
Bureau, Patiala, to file an untraced report in the case. Thereafter, the
matter was referred back to the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, for further
necessary action and the matter is still pending there. Once, sanction to
prosecute has been declined, there was no provision for reviewing the
said order.
In the reply, filed by respondent No.2 by way of an affidavit of
Ajeet Singh Pannu, IAS, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala,
reference has been made to memo/instructions (Annexure R-1), wherein
it is clarified that once the Government passes the order under Section
19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under Section 197
Cr.P.C., declining the sanction to prosecute concerned official, then
review of such order on the basis of same material, would not be
appropriate or permissible.
In view of these instructions, respondent
No.2, vide order dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), directed respondent
No.3 to withdraw his sanction order dated 03.09.2007.
Reply of respondent No.3 is similar to the other respondents.
Mohan Singh-respondent No.5 filed a detailed reply, stating
that earlier he was serving in the Indian Army and thereafter, he joined
as Patwari in the revenue department. He has 15 years unblemished
service to his career. The order refusing sanction to prosecute cannot
be reviewed. Reference has been made to the judgments passed by
this Court in Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (2)
RCR 430 (DB) (P&H), Dr. Jaswinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 2001
(2) RCR 58 and Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. State, 2001 (3) RCR
306.
The Investigating Officer Jaspal Singh, S.P. Vigilance, who
registered FIR against the petitioner, had been convicted for seven years
in a case of custodial death. Ultimately, he was pardoned vide order
dated 04.10.2005 passed by the Governor of Punjab (Annexure R-5/1).
After reinstatement, he misused his official position and has been
booked in FIR No.184 dated 23.08.2012, under Sectios 167, 211, 355,
506 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur (Annexure R-
5/2). A petition seeking CBI enquiry against Jaspal Singh has been filed
by respondent No.5.
A Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti's
case (supra), has examined the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and
held that an order refusing to sanction prosecution of a public servant
under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could not be
reviewed, as the authority had no power to do so. In para 9 of the
aforesaid judgment, it has been observed as under:-
“9.
As regard point No.2, that the Government having once
exercised its power under Section 197 of the Code, had exhausted its
power and as such, it could not exercise the same for the second time,
we are inclined to hold that there is merit in this contention. The power
given to the State Government under Section 197, having been
exercised by it while passing the first order, annexure P-2, stood
exhausted and the same could not be exercised second time while
passing the impugned order, annexure P-3. For this decision of ours,
we find support not only from the decision in Kanta Devi's case (supra),
but also from the quotation reproduced above in the case of M/s
Western India Watch Co.'s case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court
did not consider the question of exhausting the power. In that case, it
came to the conclusion that since the Government had refused to
exercise its power, therefore, it was not exhausted. The necessary
implication that if the power had been exercised, then the same could
not be exercised twice over. Furthermore, we find support from the
decision of the Supreme Court in D.N. Ganguly's case (supra), where
the subsequent order was held to be bad although not on the reasoning
that the power had been exhausted while passing the earlier order.
Hence, we hold that the Government exhausted its power under
Section 197 of the Code while passing the earlier order, annexure P-2
and it could not exercise that power twice over while passing the
impugned order, annexure P-3. On this ground also, the impugned
order, annexure P-3, is liable to be quashed as being null and void.”
In the aforesaid judgment, reference has been made to a
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand
Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 153, wherein it has been
observed as under:-
“33. What follows from the aforesaid
discussion is that appropriate authority who on consideration of all the
material had refused to accord sanction to prosecute a public servant,
has no power on re-consideration to review such an order and thereby
according sanction to prosecute on the same material.
It will be a
totally different situation, if any additional/fresh/new material is brought
before the competent authority; that admittedly is not the situation in all
the three cases nor is the case of any one of the respondents set out in
their replies. Similarly, the long gap after completion of investigation
and the grant of sanction is an additional ground to grant relief to the
petitioners in all these three cases.”
In the light of the above discussion and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, no ground is
made out to interfere in the impugned orders.
Dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment