In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2223 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: November 11, 2008 Sohan Singh Sood ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. None for the respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J Crl. Misc. No. 49956 of 2008 Crl. Misc. application is allowed. Sanction report along with forwarding letter dated 27.7.2000 (Annexure P-1) is taken on record. Crl. Revision No. 2223 of 2002 This petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, vide which he declined to take cognizance of the case for want of some sanction for prosecution of the accused-respondent Sukhpal Singh Junior Engineer. It is one of the cases, result of which has ended in the flagrant misuse of the process, rendering injustice to the prosecution as well as the complainant. The case relates to the trap held by Harjap Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Mohali upon Sukhpal Singh J.E. Wherein the former caught the later red handed while receiving a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe. After investigation, the papers were submitted to the Punjab State, Vigilance Department, Punjab, Chandigarh for grant of sanction for the prosecution of the respondent and vide letter No.32455- VB/55 dated 14.11.2000 and letter No.15/5/2000 and 3H/19756 dated 10.11.2000 issued by the Vigilance Department reported that the case is not based on the solid facts, therefore, the same be sent to the court being Crl. Revision No. 2223 of 2002 (O&M) -2- *** untraced. However, it was only Director, Housing & Urban Development Department, Punjab, who was the competent authority to grant sanction. The trial court also while approving the cancellation report observed that the State Government had refused to grant sanction for the prosecution of the accused. Despite service upon the respondent, he has not put in appearance. Heard. The complainant has placed on record copy of the sanction order issued by the Director, Punjab Housing and Urban Development, Department, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 27.7.2000. Learned counsel for the complainant has also brought to my notice that the said sanction letter was in the police papers. A letter No.3046/A Phase-I, Chandigarh dated 2.8.2000 reveals that the sanction letter along with other documents was sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Phase-I, Punjab, Chandigarh to Harjap Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phase-I, Mohali for compliance and information. This fact was also not brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar by the prosecution on the date of approval of the cancellation report. When it is definite that the sanction was granted by the Director, Punjab Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab (Competent authority), the cancellation report as well as its approval were quite against the facts. Resultantly, I accept this petition, set aside the order dated 6.8.2002 and remit the case back to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar to re-examine the matter and proceed in accordance with law. November 11, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge