In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 2223 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of decision: November 11, 2008
Sohan Singh Sood
... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
None for the respondent No.2.
A.N. Jindal, J
Crl. Misc. No. 49956 of 2008
Crl. Misc. application is allowed. Sanction report along with
forwarding letter dated 27.7.2000 (Annexure P-1) is taken on record.
Crl. Revision No. 2223 of 2002
This petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2002 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, vide which he declined to take
cognizance of the case for want of some sanction for prosecution of the
accused-respondent Sukhpal Singh Junior Engineer.
It is one of the cases, result of which has ended in the flagrant
misuse of the process, rendering injustice to the prosecution as well as the
complainant. The case relates to the trap held by Harjap Singh, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Mohali upon Sukhpal Singh
J.E. Wherein the former caught the later red handed while receiving a sum
of Rs.1,000/- as bribe. After investigation, the papers were submitted to the
Punjab State, Vigilance Department, Punjab, Chandigarh for grant of
sanction for the prosecution of the respondent and vide letter No.32455-
VB/55 dated 14.11.2000 and letter No.15/5/2000 and 3H/19756 dated
10.11.2000 issued by the Vigilance Department reported that the case is not
based on the solid facts, therefore, the same be sent to the court being
Crl. Revision No. 2223 of 2002 (O&M) -2-
***
untraced. However, it was only Director, Housing & Urban Development
Department, Punjab, who was the competent authority to grant sanction.
The trial court also while approving the cancellation report
observed that the State Government had refused to grant sanction for the
prosecution of the accused.
Despite service upon the respondent, he has not put in
appearance.
Heard.
The complainant has placed on record copy of the sanction
order issued by the Director, Punjab Housing and Urban Development,
Department, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 27.7.2000. Learned counsel for the
complainant has also brought to my notice that the said sanction letter was
in the police papers. A letter No.3046/A Phase-I, Chandigarh dated
2.8.2000 reveals that the sanction letter along with other documents was
sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Phase-I, Punjab,
Chandigarh to Harjap Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phase-I,
Mohali for compliance and information. This fact was also not brought to
the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar by the prosecution on
the date of approval of the cancellation report. When it is definite that the
sanction was granted by the Director, Punjab Housing and Urban
Development Department, Punjab (Competent authority), the cancellation
report as well as its approval were quite against the facts.
Resultantly, I accept this petition, set aside the order dated
6.8.2002 and remit the case back to the court of learned Sessions Judge,
Rupnagar to re-examine the matter and proceed in accordance with law.
November 11, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge