Kamlesh Kumari vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 April, 2009

Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M)                   1

       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                          Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M)
                          Date of decision: 30.4.2009


Kamlesh Kumari

                                                      ......Petitioner

                           Versus



State of Punjab and others

                                                    .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:     Mr.S.S.Panag, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.
                   ****


SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed by Kamlesh Kumari under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for

quashing of the order dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the

Special Judge, Ludhiana in case FIR No. 44 dated 31.5.2002, under

Section 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at

Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Patiala.

Learned Special judge, Ludhiana, in para 4 of the

impugned order, observed as under:-

“After considering the submission, I am of the view that
Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) 2

Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 20.5.2004 directed

this Court to decide at the first instance the question

whether accused Varinder Paul Singh, Majoj Kumar

Khosla and Jatinder Singh can be prosecuted in the

absence of sanction. In the challan, it is written that no

case is made out against them but it was recommended

to take departmental action against them. Show Cause

Notices have been issued to them by the department

concerned. Copies of the same were on the file. Inc ase

Janardhan Dass Gram Sachiv vs. Prem Chand

Ex.Sarpanch and ors., cited supra, there were allegations

against Gram Sachiv of corruption, bribe and illegal

gratification. It was held that previous sanction of the

Government is necessary for his prosecution. It was held

that previous sanction of the Government is necessary for

his prosecution. The complainant must approach the

competent authority of the accused first. The court

cannot take cognizance of the offence. In case Romesh

Lal Jain vs. Naginder Singh Rana and Ors., cited supra,

police officer accepted under Essential Commodities Act,

it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that no sanction for

prosecution is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Sanction would however be required under Section 19 of

the Corruption Act. It was further held that plea of want of
Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) 3

sanction although desirable should be considered at an

early stage of the proceedings but same would not mean

that accused cannot take the said plea or the Court

cannot consider the same at a later stage. Admittedly in

the instant case, there is no sanction of the competent

authority to prosecute the accused Varinder Paul Singh,

Manoj Kumar Khosla and Jatinder Singh under the

Prevention of Corruption Act. In the absence of

sanction, charge cannot be framed against the accused.

So, the accused Varinder Paul Singh, Majoj Kumar

Khosla and Jatinder Singh are hereby discharged at this

stage. However, the complainant is free to apply for

sanction to the competent authority and then to proceed

against the accused in accordance with law.”

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were discharged vide impugned

order as there was no sanction for their prosecution by the

competent authority. At the time of presentation of challan,

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were kept in column No.2 and they were

summoned to face trial on an application moved by the prosecution

under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. The prosecution did not apply for

sanction to prosecute respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in terms of the order of

the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana to the competent authority. The

petitioner has filed this petition after more than three years of passing
Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) 4

of the impugned order. Hence, no ground for interference is made

out.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

April 30, 2009
anita