CWP No. 21819 of 2010. Case: Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and others. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberCWP No. 21819 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Adv. And For Respondents: Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
JudgesTejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 10, 11, 13, 13 (1), 13 (2), 13(2), 15, 19, 7
Citation2012 (168) PLR 382, 2013 CriLJ 345
Judgement DateAugust 16, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)

Judgment:

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

  1. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The petitioner, who is holding the post of Panchayat Secretary in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, State of Punjab has challenged in terms of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the orders dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure P-28) and 17.11.2006 (Annexure P-32), whereby, respondent No. 2 has granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C.

  2. The first submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner while impugning the orders granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner is that in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Investigating Agency is required to take sanction from the Competent Authority before prosecuting any government employee and in the case in hand, respondent No. 2 has not applied its mind independently prior to grant of sanction and as such, the impugned orders granting sanction can not be sustained. Towards advancing such submission, learned counsel would refer to the draft submitted by the Investigating Agency (Annexure P-27) and would submit that the language contained in the impugned orders granting sanction is verbatim the same as employed in the draft. Accordingly, counsel would submit that respondent No. 2 while granting sanction has only completed a formality and has signed the dotted line and there has been no independent application of mind as regards the material produced by the Investigating Agency seeking sanction for prosecution against the petitioner.

  3. A perusal of the impugned sanction order would reveal that the Sanctioning Authority has adverted to all the necessary facts. It is upon examination of such material facts which were in the nature of documents attached alongwith the challan form pertaining to the case FIR as also perusing the statements of witnesses that the Sanctioning Authority had certified as regards its satis faction that the petitioner should be prosecuted for the offences concerned. The Sanctioning Authority has also certified that it is the authority competent to remove the petitioner from office. It would be useful to refer to the relevant extracts from the impugned order granting sanction and the same reads in the following terms:

    With the challan form of this case FIR the document...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT