Crl.A. No.1017-SB of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No.1017-SB of 1999 DATE OF DECISION: July 8, 2011 BABU SINGH AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE THROUGH CBI, CHANDIGARH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL. 1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No ---- PRESENT: MR. H.S. BHULLAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. MR. AJAY KAUSHIK, ADVOCATE FOR THE CBI. M.JEYAPAUL, J. 1. Both accused Babu Singh and Ramesh Kumar who were convicted for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and were sentenced thereunder have preferred the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that both the accused demanded a sum of `2000/- to withdraw the threat of demolition of the house put up by PW1 Brijender Singh in his agricultural land. The amount was settled at `1000/- after negotiation between the complainant and the accused. PW1 Brijender Singh who was not willing to part with the sum of `1000/- as bribe to the accused approached the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chandigarh with a complaint alongwith a sum of `1000/-. PW11 Dr.Birbal Sharma, Administrative Officer from the office of Regional Manager, National Insurance Company and PW12 Vijay Kumar Anand, Inspector Crl.A. No.1017-SB of 1999 -2- CBI, were associated for the purpose of the trap proposed to be laid as against the accused. There was a demonstration of Phenolphthalein test to make PW1, PW11 and PW12 understand the effect of Phenolphthalein powder. The currency notes produced by PW1 were treated with Phenolphthalein powder. It is the further case of the prosecution that the amount was first handed over to Dhabawala as directed by accused Babu Singh by PW1 Brijender Singh and thereafter the amount was received by the accused from the said Dhabawala. The police descended on the location after signal was given by PW1 to the police party. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared. The front pockets of accused Babu Singh, Ramesh and Dhabawala Surat Singh were dipped in the solution. They turned Pink. Recovery of the material objects were effected by the police. Sh. Chattar Singh, IAS, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Chandigarh who was the appointing authority for the accused having thoroughly perused the materials collected by the police and produced before him, granted sanction for prosecution (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B) as against the accused. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence produced by the prosecution and the proper sanction accorded by Sh.Chattar Singh, IAS, Estate Officer, Chandigarh recorded conviction as against both the accused. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit that the sanction orders (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B) were not granted by the competent authority. It was not established who was the appointing authority and who had got the power to dismiss the appellants from service. Referring to the evidence of DW1 Bidhi Chand, he would submit that in a similar case the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.1017-SB of 1999 -3- Administration, Chandigarh had granted sanction for prosecution. It has not been established as to whether the Estate Officer or the Deputy Commissioner or the Home Secretary, Chandigarh was the competent authority to appoint the appellants and remove them from service. Therefore, it is his submission that the case of the prosecution will have to be thrown out as there was no proper sanction from the competent authority. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI, Mr.Ajay Kaushik would submit that the evidence of PW10 Avinash Kapoor in the light of the sanction orders as Exs.PW10/A and PW10/B would go to establish that Sh.Chattar Singh, IAS who was the Estate Officer has got the power to appoint the appellants in service and dismiss them from service. The sanction orders Exs.PW10/A and PW10/B would also read that Sh. Chattar Singh, IAS having adverted to the fact that he was the authority to appoint the appellants in service and dismiss them from service has granted sanction after thorough scrutiny of the incriminating materials collected and produced before him. 5. Let me make it clear that the appellants during the course of submission before this Court have not attacked the other merits of the case whcih led to their conviction. They have confined themselves only to the issue whether the grant of sanction for prosecution was proper or not. Under such circumstances, the Court has no occasion to go into the other evidence produced by the prosecution to establish the case as against the accused-appellants. 6. Let me now take up the only point raked up by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the case of the prosecution is liable Crl.A. No.1017-SB of 1999 -4- to be thrown out on account of lack of proper sanction from the competent authority. On a careful perusal of the sanction orders Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B, it is found that accused Babu Singh was serving as Kanungo in the Estate Office, Chandigarh and accused Ramesh was functioning as Patwari in the said office. Sh.Chattar Singh, IAS in his capacity as Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh described himself as the competent authority to remove both the appellants from service, passed the sanction orders Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B after satisfying himself as to the prima facie materials collected by the CBI as against the appellants to prosecute them in public interest. PW10 Sh.Avinash Kapoor, who was dealing with the file relating to this case has spoken to the fact that Sh.Chattar Singh, IAS in his capacity as Estate Officer has granted the sanction order for prosecution as against these two appellants. When the appellants had been serving in the Estate Office, the Estate Officer was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution. The evidence of PW10 in the light of sanction orders produced by him would go to show that it was only Sh.Chattar Singh, IAS who was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution as against both the appellants. It is to be noted that no material was produced by the appellants to drive home their defence that Sh.Chattar Singh, IAS was not the competent authority. 7. Of course, on the side of the defence DW1 Bidhi Chand, Sr.Assistant attached to the Home Department, Chandigarh was examined to show that in a similar case the Home Secretary, Chandigarh had accorded sanction for prosecution. This Court is not concerned with the sanction accorded by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh Crl.A. No.1017-SB of 1999 -5- in connection with yet another case. The question is whether the sanction in this case was accorded by the competent authority to prosecute the appellants. The evidence of PW10 in the background of sanction orders Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B clearly proves the fact that it was only Sh.Chattar Singh, IAS, Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh who was the competent authority. Referring to the sanction order passed by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh in connection with yet another case, it appears that the appellants are trying to create confusion in the mind of the Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants referred to a decision of this Court in Bal Krishan vs. State of Punjab, 1987(1) CLJ (C.Cr. & Rev.) 646, where sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Collector when the competent authority was found to be the Commissioner of Consolidation Department. Under such circumstances, this Court chose to set aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was not valid. The aforesaid decision of this Court will not apply to the facts of this case where it was established that the sanction was accorded only by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh who was the competent authority to remove from service the appellants who were serving in the Estate Office, Chandigarh Administration. 9. In view of the above, I find that there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants are entitled to acquittal on the ground that no valid sanction was granted by the competent authority. Crl.A. No.1017-SB of 1999 -6- 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed. 11. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. They shall surrender before the trial Court within 15 days from the date of this judgement. In default thereof, the trial Court shall issue non-bailable warrants and send them to prison to undergo the unexpired portion of their respective sentence. July 8, 2011 (M.JEYAPAUL) Gulati JUDGE