Criminal Misc. No. M-5499 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-5499 of 2011 Date of decision : 13.09.2011 Jagtar Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Awasthi, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 26 dated 31.08.2006 registered against the petitioner under section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at police station Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that sanction to prosecute the petitioner was denied specifically vide order dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P-3A) passed by Superintending Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana and thus proceedings against the petitioner are vitiated. According to him, in the absence of sanction, untraced report was filed by Vigilance Bureau before the competent court on 21.05.2008. However, on 20.10.2010, Chief Director Vigilance Bureau had directed that challan be filed under section 173 Cr.P.C. According to him, no such directions could Criminal Misc. No. M-5499 of 2011 2 have been given by said officer and thus order Annexure P-6 deserves to be quashed. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He has referred to affidavit of Gurcharan Singh, DySP, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab in reply to the petition. According to him, a complaint was received against the petitioner by one of the victims of 1984 riots that petitioner had demanded `5,000/- as illegal gratification for disbursement of relief fund. A trap was thus laid and petitioner was caught red handed. He was at that time working as Assistant Revenue Clerk. Thereafter, sanction for prosecuting the petitioner was sought from Administrative department but the same was refused on the ground that petitioner had been relieved from deputation on 25.08.2006 and occurrence took place on 31.08.2006. According to counsel, department took this stand in view of the pressure exerted by the union in the department. In the absence of sanction, untraced report was submitted. However, Chief Director Vigilance Bureau vide impugned order dated 20.10.2010 had directed that challan be filed before the court below. Learned counsel has emphasized that though the petitioner was relieved on 25.08.2006 but he was in a position to get work done as he had sufficient influence there. It was due to this, he had struck a deal with respondent No.2. I have learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded bribe from respondent No. 2 (a victim of 1984 riots) to disburse the relief fund to him. A detailed complaint was submitted by the Dhanjit Singh who stated that he was in Calcutta for about 10 years. After 1984 riots he shifted to Ludhiana. In the year 2006, the Government announced a grant of `2.00 lacs per family to the riots victims from its relief fund Criminal Misc. No. M-5499 of 2011 3 account. He contacted Jagtar Singh (petitioner herein), Assistant Revenue Clerk in the Sidhwan Division Canal Office, Ludhiana for release of fund. He was told that he may complete the necessary formalities and submit an affidavit, copy of ration card, etc. The complainant, thereafter, prepared a file and met Jagtar Singh on 29.08.2006. He was told by Jagtar Singh that he will have to verify all the documents whereafter relief fund of `2.00 lacs would be released to him. However, petitioner would charge `5,000/- for doing the needful. On a request being made by the complainant that he was a very poor person, the petitioner reduced the bribe amount to `3,000/-. The complainant thereafter, complained to the Vigilance Bureau whereafter trap was laid and petitioner was caught red-handed. The Administrative department, however, refused permission to prosecute the petitioner vide order dated 03.08.2007, Annexure P-3A. Thereafter the Vigilance Bureau submitted an untraced report on 21.08.2008. A perusal of the said report, Annexure P-5 shows that investigating agency submitted before the court in its final report that petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting bribe of `3,000/- in presence of witnesses. However, in view of refusal of Administrative department to grant sanction, untraced report was being filed. Vide impugned order dated 20.10.2010, Annexure P-6, however, Vigilance Bureau directed that challan be submitted in the case, wherein it may be mentioned that charges have been found to be proved but sanction was not granted by the Administrative Department. Resultantly, challan was submitted on 22.11.2010 before the court of Special Judge, Ludhiana. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has merely been mentioned therein that charges against the petitioner had been proved but sanction had not been granted by the Administrative Department. While the Criminal Misc. No. M-5499 of 2011 4 first report dated 21.05.2008, Annexure P-5 was titled as ‘untraced report’, the present one is titled as ‘challan’. Substratum of both the reports, however, appears to be the same. The stand of the investigating agency in the earlier report as well as the instant one is that charges against the petitioner were found to be proved but sanction was not granted by the administrative department. Needless to observe that in the absence of sanction, the investigating agency is not required to submit an untraced report. It can submit its final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. mentioning all the facts, including refusal of sanction by the administrative department. That is what has happened in the instant case. Under the circumstances, the petition is without any merit. The same is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to raise his pleas before the trial court at the appropriate stage. September 13, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE