Crl. Revision No. 138 of 2007 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 138 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.8.2011. Sukhdev Raj Dhingra .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 3.11.2006 whereby charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner in FIR No. 21 dated 28.7.2005 under Sections 415, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station F.S. Mohali. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the competent authority had declined to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused vide order dated 26.4.2006 (Annexure P-9). Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2006. The prosecution presented the challan against the petition after his retirement on the presumption that now no sanction for his prosecution was required from the competent authority. Since the competent authority had declined to grant Crl. Revision No. 138 of 2007 (O&M) -2 - sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the prosecution could not be launched after his retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Cittaranjan Das versus State of Orissa, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal), 512', wherein it was held as under:- “We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Tripathy and the decision relied on is clearly distinguishable. Sanction is a devise provided by law to safeguard public servants from vexatious and frivolous prosecution. It is to give them freedom and liberty to perform their duty without fear or favour and not succumb to the pressure of unscrupulous elements. It is a weapon at the hands of the sanctioning authority to protect the innocent public servants from uncalled for prosecution but not intended to shield the guilty. Here in the present case while the appellant was in service sanction sought for his prosecution was declined by the State government. Vigilance Department did not challenge the same and allowed the appellant to retire from service. After the retirement, Vigilance Department requested the State Government to reconsider its decision, which was not only refused but the State Government while doing so clearly observed that no prima facie case of disproportionate assets against the appellant is made out. Notwithstanding that Vigilance Department chose to file charge-sheet after the retirement of the appellant and on that Special Judge had taken cognizance and issued process. We are of the opinion that in a case in which sanction sought is refused by the competent authority, while the public Crl. Revision No. 138 of 2007 (O&M) -3 - servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of Public Servant. Any other view will render the protection illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is refused by the competent authority after the retirement of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all necessary and any exercise in this regard would be action in futility.” Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that since the petitioner had retired from service, no sanction was required to launch prosecution against him. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. There is no dispute qua the factual position in this case. Admittedly, petitioner was working as Taxation Inspector. The prosecution sought sanction to prosecute the petitioner in the FIR in question. Vide order dated 26.4.2006 (Annexure P-9), the competent authority held that it was not a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner-Sukhdev Raj Dhingra. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. Since in the present case the sanction for prosecution had been declined by the competent authority, the prosecution could not be launched against the petitioner after his retirement. It is not a case where no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was sought during the period petitioner was in service. Rather, the prosecution had sought sanction for prosecution of the petitioner but it was declined by the Crl. Revision No. 138 of 2007 (O&M) -4 - competent authority after considering the material, produced before it. The present case is duly covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Chittaranjan Das's case (supra). Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.11.2006 whereby the charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner, is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner stands discharged in FIR No. 21 dated 28.7.2005 under Sections 415, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station F.S. Mohali. (SABINA) JUDGE August 10, 2011 Gurpreet