Subhash Chander And ANR v. State Of Punjab And ANR




   
 

 Date of decision: 17th July, 2015 Dr. Subhash Chander and another

Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another

Respondents

   

 
  
 1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. J.S. Brar, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab with Inspector Balbir Singh for respondent No.1.

Mr. Amandeep S. Manaise, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 
! A case by way of FIR No.78 dated 13.12.2005 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Amritsar against Dr. Subhash Chander and Hans Raj, present petitioners. On presentation of the challan, an application for dropping proceedings against the accused for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Act was moved on the grounds that since no legal and valid

sanction has been accorded to prosecute the accused as such they were entitled to discharge.

It is through the impugned orders dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure P1), learned Additional Sessions Judge>cum>Judge, Special Court, Gurdaspur dismissed the application and ordered framing of the charges under Section 17 and 13(2) of the Act and which is subject matter of assail in the instant revision petition before this Court.

Heard Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. J.S. Brar, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab along with Inspector Balbir Singh on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate representing respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the State could not convince this Court how in the absence of a legal and valid sanction, the Special Court could take cognizance of the offences and frame charges against the accused. Section 19 of the Act, which is reproduced below to lay emphasis, specifically bars taking of cognizance by a Special Court for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act:
 

 

   



  

  

    

   

!"#""$%     &&  

  "'(  

"       

 (

 &  

(  )



&  &

     ( 



  * + &"  + &,        

 (

 &  

 (       

&  &

     (  

 + &"  + &, 

      

"      &   &   &  & 

  - .    

 (

  

 

     (  

   /







  



   * + &    + &     "





   + &     (  (

    & & 

   &

    & (   (         &&  $  (         * * &   "!$- !1     "    

    2

      *

"  &





   

 "    "

&

" 

  "

/







" 

 

 

"  3

 " " 



 ,    

  



4  

    " &





   

    " 





 

 "

&

 

    

     3

,  

  



4   

  

 '

   (  

 

   0  

 /

" "    

 1 5& 



$(  

 "    " &

 

  "



  

  

     

*

   (

3

 

  

    

       

 6'

7  





"      &   



,   

 /

   



   /

&   



      

       (  

 

   

  /

&  

&  8 and which is the established position of law as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of "#$%&'($)$* $($+$,)$- ,$,. )&//$ 00123 1)&4&*$%3 1 3 Learned State counsel with all fairness has conceded that even till date no legal and valid sanction has been accorded for prosecution of both the petitioners who are public servants at the time

of taking cognizance of the offence within the domain of Section 21 of the IPC.

In the light of this specific bar ordained in the provisions of law, the learned Special Judge has certainly fell into an error by taking cognizance of the offences as well as framing of chargesheet, in view of which the impugned order certainly is not sustainable and is thus, set aside by way of allowing the present revision petition.  
3  5%6!7