CWP No.20203 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20203 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.07.2010 **** Ravinder Mittal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated NIL (Annexure P4) whereby upon review of the previous decisions, the competent authority has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in a criminal case under Section 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was posted as a Field Officer in Killianwali Branch of the respondent-Bank at that time. (2). The undisputed facts are that a loan was got sanctioned from the Bank by borrowers, namely, CWP No.20203 of 2009.doc - 2 – Sardul Singh s/o Sukhcharan Singh and Harbans Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh allegedly by producing some forged revenue records. It is alleged that an FIR No.19 dated 06.04.2005 has been got registered against both the borrowers at the instance of the petitioner. Subsequently, Sardul Singh and Harbans Singh in their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC are alleged to have disclosed that the Branch Manager and Field Officer agreed to sanction the loan on their promise (borrower’s) to pay 10% of the loan amount to them. The borrowers claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.10000/- to the petitioner as a bribe money. When the sanction was earlier refused by the competent authority on two occasions, admittedly the statements of the borrowers were not recorded and were not part of the record as their statements (under Section 161 Cr.PC) were recorded on 15 th June 2007 only. (3). It is on the basis of the new material, namely, the alleged statements made by the borrowers, that the competent authority has re-considered the matter and has accorded its sanction for petitioner’s prosecution. CWP No.20203 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). This Court in CWP No.15011 of 2008 (Dr. Bhupesh Kumar Goel v. State of Punjab & Another) decided on 17.03.2010 has dealt with the similar issues raised in the present writ petition. (5). For the reasons already assigned in Dr. Bhupesh Kumar Goel’s case (supra), I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order except to observe that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner shall be available to him as a part of his defence to be taken at an appropriate stage before the Court concerned. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . 26.07.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE