CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22158 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 29, 2008 Dr.Inderjit Singh Bagga .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioner for accepting the cancellation report filed in the case registered against him is declined. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of this order dated 18.8.2008. Petitioner, Dr.Inderjit Singh, accused, was working as Medical Officer, in the year 1999. One Raj Kumar alongwith his employer, Anil Kumar, had gone to the Civil Hospital, when he was caused injuries by one Manjit Singh. The petitioner, who was a CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22158 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: Medical Officer, demanded bribe of Rs.800/- for issuing medical report, but later agreed to do so on payment of Rs.500/- as bribe. The complainant promised to pay the same but went and reported the matter to DSP Charanjit Singh, who recorded the statement of Raj Kumar and thereafter conducted raid and apprehended the petitioner. 5 currency notes of Rs.100/- denominations were recovered from the drawer of the table of the petitioner. Normal procedural requirements were complied with. A medico-legal report prepared by him was also taken into possession. After investigation, the cancellation report was submitted in the Court on 7.8.2003. Finding that there was enough evidence against the petitioner to proceed with the case, the cancellation report was returned to investigating agency for further investigation. The Investigating Agency, however, again filed a cancellation report, which was under consideration before the Court and has been disposed of through the impugned order. It was contended before the Trial Court on behalf of the petitioner that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the P.C. Act is required to proceed with the case and cognizance can not be taken without such sanction. It may be worth notice that the petitioner-accused is alleged to have committed offence under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). The question of obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in this case would not arise. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the offences under the Act and Section 19 of the said Act is only relevant in this regard. Section 19(3) of the Act would be CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22158 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: relevant to see the affect of absence of sanction or any error therein. The same is reproduced hereunder:- (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.” It is clearly provided that no finding, sentence or order passed by the Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub- section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court a failure of justice has CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22158 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: in fact been occasioned thereby. It is not the case of the petitioner that there had been any failure of justice on account of absence of sanction or not. There is some justification in the view taken by the Trial Court that sanction in this case may not be necessary to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under the Act because while accepting bribe a public servant neither act nor proposes to act in discharge of his official duties. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would refer to the case of Raghunath Anand Govilkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1042. It is held in this case that cognizance of offence by any Court is barred by Section 197 of the Code, unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority if the offence alleged to have been committed was in discharge of the official duties. This has been held to be mandatory protection. As already noticed, the petitioner has been accused of an offence under the Act and as such, Section 19 of the said Act only would be relevant in this case. In the case Raghunath Anand Govilkar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the person accused who was accused of offences under Section 406, 409 and 120-B IPC. Otherwise also, it has been significantly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that sanction would be necessary if offence alleged to have been committed was in discharge of the official duty. Use of expression `official duty' implies that act or omission must have been done by the public servant in the course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty, which further must have been official in CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22158 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: nature. Thus, the requirement of said Section is to construed strictly while determining its applicability to the act or omission during the course of service. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 208, which was referred to before the Special Judge, this Court has, after relying on various judgments, has held that following principle could be deduced in this regard:- “(i) Protection is only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. (ii)If in doing public duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. (iii)It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official duty. Act can be performed in discharge of official duty as well as in dereliction thereof.” In addition to all these considerations, the contents of Section 19(3) of the Act can not be ignored. In fact, counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that Section 197 Cr.P.C. would have no applicability in the present case and Section 19 of the Act is the complete Code, which will govern the aspect of sanction in this case. CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22158 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: The official duty of the petitioner was to issue medical report. While performing that duty, he demanded money to perform the duty required of him. This part would not be connected with discharge of his official duty. As viewed by the Courts, it is the quality of the act which is important and the protection is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his duty. Accepting or asking for money would certainly not be in the scope and range of the official duty performed by the petitioner. Sanction, as such, would in my considered opinion, be not required in this case and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity as pleaded. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that cancellation report was submitted in this case and as such, the grant of sanction would acquire an added significance. For accepting or rejecting the cancellation report as submitted by the investigating agency, grant or non grant of sanction would have no relevance. Cancellation report has not been submitted on the basis that the sanction in this case has not been granted. The Court of Special Judge is fully justified in applying its mind to the cancellation report and rejecting the same, as apparently there is sufficient material on record in support of the allegations. There is enough material on record for which cognizance of offence can be taken against the petitioner. Once the cancellation was submitted, obviously no action was likely to be taken for obtaining sanction. However, sanction would not be needed in this case. The view taken by the Court is on the basis of a law laid down above and would not call for any interference. CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 22158 OF 2008 :{ 7 }: The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 29 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE