Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1999 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1999 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 14.11.2008
Ganga Ram ...petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mehar Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
RANJIT SINGH J.
The present revision petition is directed against the order
passed by Special Judge, Faridkot dated 11.10.1999 whereby he has
declined the application filed by the petitioner for his discharge on the
ground that he was not liable to be prosecuted in the absence of sanction as
needed under 197 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner alongwith six persons is being prosecuted for an
offence under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 420, 465,
467, 120-B IPC. The allegation made in the FIR reveal that 40 killas of land
was fraudulently sold by Society named Pucca Scheduled Caste Land
Owning Co-op. Soceity Limited, Faridkot (in short Pucca Society). It is
alleged that the petitioner had connived with other accused in this sale and
that the sale price of the land mentioned in the sale deed has not been given
to the said society. As per the allegations, Kirpal Singh, Secretary of the
said society had allegedly got the resolution passed deceitfully in his favour
and sold the said land through registered sale deed in favour of Surinder Pal
Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1999 2
Singh, his wife Baljit Kaur and his son Jaswinder Pal Singh. The petitioner
at that time was working as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society at
Faridkot. The petitioner is alleged to have misused his official position by
giving sanction to the resolution allegedly passed by the society for the sale
of land after getting illegal gratification from Surinder Pal Singh.
Allegation is that initially the petitioner had not accorded the approval to
the said resolution but did so subsequently by recording office number on
the said approval.
Challan has been presented against the petitioner and others.
The petitioner filed an application for his discharge primarily contending
that before taking cognizance of the offences in his case, it was legally
necessary to obtain sanction from the government, as charges against the
petitioner also included an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
This application for discharge, however, was declined which is now
impugned in the present revision petition. The proceedings in this case was
stayed on 1.11.1999 at the time of issuing notice of motion. This order
continued till 30.10.2008 on which date the same was vacated. The order
dated 30.10.2008 is reproduced below:
“No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
In the interest of justice, adjourned to 14.11.2008.
Interim order dated 1.11.1999, staying further
proceedings, is vacated.
Even otherwise the petitioner is accused of an offence
under the Prevention of Corruption Act where proceedings can
not be ordered to be stayed in terms of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. State
Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1999 3of Rajasthan, 2001 Cri.L.J. 4640.
Copy of the order be given dasti.”
The case has come up for hearing today. Besides submitting
that sanction would be needed for prosecuting the petitioner the counsel
pleads that the petitioner is being prosecuted without their being any
allegation against him. Counsel submits that facts would speak for
themselves and would show that the petitioner did not do any act as
Assistant Registrar for which he can be held responsible and prosecuted.
Elaborating the same, the counsel contends that Pucca Society had passed
the resolution dated 18.9.1992 for sale of 18 killa land to Surinder Pal Singh
and others they being from Scheduled Castes. When this resolution put up
to the petitioner in his capacity as Assistant Registrar, he made the
following endorsement thereon:
“Further proceedings be done in accordance with the bye-laws
of the Society.”
On the same very day the said resolution was again placed
before the petitioner with the note that the sale was not in favour of the
Scheduled Castes and sale could be made only to the Scheduled Castes.
The petitioner thereafter immediately ordered that the resolution be
rescinded. Another resolution dated 20.9.1992 which is referred to the
second resolution concerning the sale of 40 acres of land in favour of
Surinder Pal Singh and others, was never put up to the petitioner and as
such he did not pass any order on the said resolution in his capacity as
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative society, Faridkot. The petitioner and his
co-accused are being prosecuted for conniving with the employees of the
Pucca Society for selling this land which is alleged to be revealing alleged
Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1999 4
offences against the petitioner. Counsel thus would contend that there is no
material on record to proceed against the petitioner. He would also points
out that no action was ever taken against the petitioner departmentally. He
was never ever questioned or made to face any departmental proceeding.
Naib Tehsildar, who was responsible for registering the sale deeds have
been proceeded against and the sanction for his prosecution is already
granted by the government. This is highlighted by the counsel to say that
since the sanction has been obtained in respect of Tehsildar, it is not
possible to take a view that sanction against the petitioner would not be
needed. The petitioner is being accused of approving the resolution in his
capacity as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies i.e. public servant.
Though there are allegations in the FIR that the petitioner did so by taking
bribe but, as per the counsel, there is no material in this regard available.
The connivance apparently is on the ground that the petitioner was
responsible for approving the resolution passed by the Pucca Co-operative
society. The fact that this resolution was rescinded by the petitioner does
not appear to be in dispute. Can he still be held liable for doing anything in
connection with this resolution. Counsel has also highlighted that the
resolution regarding 40 killas was never put up to him and the allegation in
the FIR are concerning 40 killas and not regarding 18 killas.
Apparently what has been urged above may prima facie
indicate that the petitioner has not taken any action which may lead to
commission of offence against him. However, it is job of the trial to see if
sufficient material is available to frame a charge and proceed against the
petitioner. Challan has been presented. Trial court is yet to apply its mind to
Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1999 5
see if charges can be framed or not. In view of the stay granted by this Court
the trial Court has not yet proceeded to see if the charge can be framed
against any of the accused including the petitioner or not. It would be thus
appropriate for the petitioner to raise all these pleas at the time of framing of
charge. The Court would then take into consideration the facts collected
during investigation. If the petitioner has not performed any role in his
capacity as Assistant Registrar Society qua this resolution, obviously the
Court would consider the same. This is not the job of this Court specially
so when the petitioner has approached this Court before framing of charge
and has got a stay of the proceedings. It would be thus appropriate to
relegate the petitioner to appear before the trial Court and to raise all these
pleas. Needless to mention that trial Court would be at liberty to frame
charge if the Court is satisfied from the material collected that prima facie
evidence exists to frame a charge against the accused. If there is no
evidence on material available on record even prima facie, then the Court
may not go ahead to frame charge. All this is required to be seen by the trial
Court. This Court cannot and has not sifted the material collected during
investigation and has noted the contentions of the petitioner in this regard.
Before parting with this order, it needs to be observed that the
petitioner had retired from the service on February, 1997. This FIR was
registered on 9.6.1995. Ever since that date he is facing this prosecution.
The petitioner is thus under the threat of trial and prosecution for nearly 13
years. His pension and other pensionary benefits are also held up. The
petitioner is justified in saying that he has suffered enough and is without
resources. He is only getting a provisional pension. I deem it appropriate to
impress upon and direct the trial Court to expedite the hearing of this case
Criminal Revision No. 1378 of 1999 6
and see if there is material to frame a charge against the petitioner and to
proceed against him. Let the petitioner appear before the trial Court and
raise all his pleas available to him in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the present revision petition is
disposed of. Needless to mention that the petitioner would be still at liberty
to approach this Court in case charge is framed against him.
(RANJIT SINGH)
NOVEMBER 14, 2008 JUDGE
rts