IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 2423 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 27.5.2009 Subhash Duggal .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent. Present:- Mr. B. S. Jaswal , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of order dated 8.10.2008 passed by Special Judge, Amritsar, summoning the petitioner as an additional accused exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C to face trial for offence under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the allegations in the FIR registered at the instance of Dharminder Kumar, on 15.12.2004 petitioner along with line man Kedar Nath visited his shop and found that power meter was defective. Bribe was allegedly demanded and was paid to Kedar Nath, who was deputed to collect the same from the complainant. The recovery of tainted currency of Rs.1000/- was detected from Kedar Nath in a raid conducted. Sanction was not granted regarding prosecution of the petitioner. Name of the petitioner was kept in Column No.2. Learned State counsel, on the instructions of Inspector Kanwaljit Singh informs that sanction had been applied three times before the competent authority, but the same was not granted as such name of the petitioner was kept in Column No.2 of the challan in the trial which is now Crl. Rev. No. 2423 of 2008 -2- pending against Kidar Nath. In view of above, it appears that the continuation of proceedings for punishment of the petitioner, under Prevention of Corruption Act, without there being any sanction, will not be permitted in view of statutory for under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Court, while passing order under Section 319 Cr.P.C, has not appreciated the said fact. The impugned order deserves to be quashed on another ground i.e., the summoning order status passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C without cross examination of PW-1 Dharmender Kumar. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd Rafiq and Another, JT 2007 (5) SC 562, the summoning order without cross-examination of witness is not sustainable. It is not out of place to observe here that while exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the Court is required to be satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. In view of absence of any sanction the chances of conviction of petitioner is remote. Taking of cognizance of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, is thus, not permissible without vaild sanction. Petition is allowed. Summoning order dated 8.10.2008 is, therefore, set aside. May 27, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge