Naseeb v. State Of Haryana And ORS.
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH CORUT AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.12.2022 NASEEB ... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present:
Mr. S. S. Surjewala, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for respondents No.6.
**** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) The present petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondents-Authorities whereby the prosecution sanction of respondent No.6 - Gulab Singh Duhan has been declined.
Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that a complaint was submitted by the petitioner to the State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana resulting in registration of FIR No.65 dated 16.10.2015 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak against Gulab Singh Duhan (respondent No.6) and Ashok Kumar son of Het Ram (Driver of Haryana Roadways). The allegations were with regard to raising a demand of Rs.12,000/- as bribe money for selection of the petitioner as an Apprentice in the Haryana Roadways. A raid was thereafter conducted wherein Respondent No.6- Gulab Singh Duhan and co-accused Ashok Kumar were apprehended by the raiding
party. The tainted currency notes were, however, recovered from co-accused Ashok Kumar, Driver and not from the respondent No.6. After conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted the evidence alongwith the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation to the competent Authority for grant of sanction to prosecute the above said accused persons namely Gulab Singh Duhan and Ashok Kumar. The prosecution sanction against co-accused Ashok Kumar (from whom the recovery was effected) was declined by the competent Authority vide order dated 08.12.2015 after considering the evidence collected and produced before it. The petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that he has no grievance against the prosecution sanction being declined against accused Ashok Kumar, Driver. Thereafter, the case of respondent No.6 was considered by the competent Authority and vide order dated 22.04.2016, the prosecution sanction against respondent No.6 was also declined after observing as under:
! "
# $
%&%'('%) %*+ , -, .
/ $ 0 ,
1
.
1 %('''23
4
5
# $ 6 1
1 7 The aforesaid order is now the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sanction has been wrongly declined by the competent Authority by recording a finding on the admissibility of the evidence which is impermissible. Written statement on behalf of the respondent No.1 i.e. the State has been filed, wherein the respondent-State has taken a specific stand that the evidence collected by the investigating agency did not show any proof of acceptance of illegal gratification by respondent No.6 and no recovery was effected from the respondent No.6 as well. There was also no iota of evidence to prove that the demand, acceptance and receipt of the tainted currency notes were at the instance of or at the level of respondent No.6. The relevant extract of the reply is reproduced hereinafter below: 85
.*9
3 :
.(:%; ;5
.*5 .* 3
13%5
<
:
;
2 +5 < %=
5 . *
$ 3
2
3
5
0 :
;
<
7 Separate written statement has also been filed on behalf of the State Vigilance Bureau, wherein they have reiterated the stand of the State. It has also been pointed out that the cancellation report already stands accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 27.07.2016. Reply on behalf of respondent No.6- Gulab Singh Duhan has also been filed, in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. The relevant extract of said reply reads thus:
85
1
%*%'('%) %'8' $ .
3
.%&
5 3.
> ! +'' -$ %*%'('%) ?
401.*) %*%'('%)2 & %8 -,
>@ 1 *
- 5
16 0 1 5 1
4 4 .
1 5
1
5 1
%*%'('%) %'8'$ .
3
.%&
4
1*2% +5
5
1 2
.
A%(('%) : -3+; ,#-%=*(' ('%*
(%=('%* : -3*;
9
6
1 5
5
7 Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the petitioner has been pursuing the instant petition maliciously and notwithstanding the fact that the competent Authority has examined the evidence collected by the investigating agency and has found no evidence to reflect the involvement of respondent No.6 in the commission of the alleged offence. In the absence of any evidence to connect respondent No.6 with the commission of the offence and taking into consideration the fact that the coaccused Ashok Kumar, from whom the tainted currency notes were recovered and against whom the prosecution sanction has already been declined, there was no purpose in prosecuting the respondent No.6 in the present petition as well.
I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents and record available on case file with their able assistance.
It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the competent Authority has noticed the brazen absence of necessary ingredient for commission of offences as are necessary for prosecuting respondent No.6 and as such, its satisfaction recorded by the competent Authority for declining the prosecution sanction cannot be misconstrued as an opinion on the evidentiary value. The petitioner could not refer to any material collected by the investigating agency, on the basis whereof it can be assumed that the investigation itself was tainted or that the finding recorded by the competent Authority was not based on due consideration of evidence collected by the investigating agency.
In the absence of any material to show that the foundation of declining the prosecution sanction was misconceived or based upon gross misreading and/or misappreciation of the evidence and/or upon non-consideration of the pre-requisites for commission of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, I fail to find any fault in the order passed by the competent Authority. The reasons given and a conclusion recorded with regard to laying foundation for the satisfaction of the authority itself and is not a finding on the evidentiary value of such evidence. The submissions of the petitioner as well as his reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of the Allahabad High Court passed in the matter of 'Pancham Lal Vs. State of U.P'. bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2424 of 1998 decided on 12.11.
1998 is, thus, misconceived and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
all and that the evidence available is not sufficient. Suffering of evidence and its significance can be examined and the competent Authority has not doubted the admissibility of evidence but observed that the said evidence is grossly deficient to fulfill the ingredients of the offence. Besides, prosecution sanction qua the person from whom recovery was effected had earlier been declined and the same is not disputed. The only obligation against respondent No.6 is that the co-accused has received money on the asking of and at the behest of respondent No.6. The investigation apparently failed to extract any evidence which could establish such link and the case rested solely on the allegation levelled by the petitioner- devoid of any connecting evidence.
A person is not to be forcibly subjected to prolonged criminal prosecution despite absence of evidence in support of the allegations, more so, when investigation is not alleged to be faulty and petitioner has failed to refer to any evidence to contradict the reasons recorded by the competent Authority. High Court would not ordinarily substitute opinion of the competent Authority unless such opinion is based on misleading and/or non-appreciation of evidence or is infested with perversity, illegality, malice or impropriety. The present petition is accordingly dismissed and the order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the competent Authority is hereby affirmed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 06.12.2022.
JUDGE rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No