High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1492/2021disposed of

Sarbjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2023-06-01Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill2 pages

2023:PHHC:080065 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-24608-2023;

CRM-24613-2023 in/and CRR-1492-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:-01.06.2023 Sarbjit Singh ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Surjit Kumar.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) CRM-24608-2023 In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the matter is preponed from 11.7.2023 and is taken on Board today itself. CRM-24613-2023 In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for and copy of order dated 18.8.2021 and certified copy of order MOHAN SINGH 2023.06.01 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRR-1492-2021 (O&M) ( 2 ) 2023:PHHC:080065 dated 25.8.2021 are taken on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2, subject to all exceptions.

CRR-1492-2021 (O&M)

1. The short point raised in this revision petition is that while the sanction was accorded in the present case for prosecuting the petitioner vide order dated 24.6.2022 whereas the cognizance was taken by the trial Court on 25.8.2021.

2. Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act imposes an absolute embargo upon taking cognizance without a prior sanction to prosecute a public servant. In these circumstances, the proceedings qua the petitioner would be non-est in the absence of a sanction order. Consequently, the proceedings qua the petitioner are set aside and the trial Court is directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass a fresh order while considering the question as to whether the charges are required to be framed against the petitioner or not.

3. Needless to mention, the 3 PWs who are stated to have already been examined would be required to be examined again if de-novo trial is initiated. It is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the question as regards the "validity" of the sanction order during the trial after evidence has been led.

4. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 01.06.2023 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No MOHAN SINGH 2023.06.01 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment