Crl. Rev. No. 2727 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 2727 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 5, 2009 Naveen Kansal …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rattan Brar, AAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated October 6, 2008 by virtue of which he alongwith Rakesh Kumar Goyal has been charged under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short ‘the Act’) on the allegation that he alongwith his co-accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- as a reward for doing an Crl. Rev. No. 2727 of 2008 [2] official act which both of them were legally bound to do and that they had by corrupt illegal means obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.2000/-. Brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this matter are that Subhash Chander, complainant had informed the DIG, /Vigilance Ambala City by complaint that he was running a shop by the name and style of Ishaan Footwear and he had taken a long for construction of his house from Housing Federation. He has also repaid with interest the loan amount but the registered sale deed of his house and other documents had not been returned by the Housing Federation. When he had gone to the DO of Housing Federation, Panchkula, co-accused of the petitioner Rakesh Goyal and petitioner told him that in case he wanted to take back the documents pertaining to his house he would have to pay them this job a bribe of Rs.2000/-. He had been given an appointment in the afternoon to pay the sum of Rs.2000/-. But as he did not want to pay the money, he reported the matter to the Vigilance Department. He presented four currency notes of Rs.500/- each. After all the necessary formalities of joining shadow witness, a raid was conducted by a raiding party. Sum of Rs.2000/- was paid to Rakesh Goyal. The tainted money was recovery from his pocket of shirt. The petitioner was not challaned by the police. The prosecution examined EHC Gurcharan Singh as PW1 and Subhash Chander, complainant. When the examination-in-chief of complainant Subhash Chander had been partly recorded, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. Vide order annexure P-6 dated March 11, 2008, the Special Judge under Prevention of Crl. Rev. No. 2727 of 2008 [3] Corruption Act summon the petitioner observing in the order that the petitioner had not been sent to face trial by the investigating officer deliberately whereas the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence was existing. Pursuant to the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it appears that the petitioner appeared before the Special Judge and was charged as mentioned hereinabove. The short question which is involved in the present case is whether the trial Court is justified in exercising the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner as an additional accused and to take cognizance against him in violation of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. A similar question had cropped up before the Apex Court in Dilawar Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh and another, 2005 (4) RCR (Crl.) 855, wherein it was held that for prosecution of public servant in corruption case, sanction for prosecution accorded by competent authority under Section 19 of the Act, is necessary and that the Court is not competent to add an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and to take cognizance against him without the sanction for prosecution. It was held that sanction for prosecution has to be granted with respect to a specific accused. Referring to Section 19 of the Act regarding previous sanction necessary for prosecution, it was observed as follows:- “At the time of taking loan, the sale deed of the house and other documents were kept by the department i.e. Housing Federation, Panchkula. After repaying the loan amount along with Crl. Rev. No. 2727 of 2008 [4] interest, I had demanded the return of my sale deed and other documents on 26.9.2006 but accused Rakesh Goel today present in the court and Naveen Kansal, D.O., told me that in case, I want return of sale deed and other documents of my house, I had to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as bribe to them. As I never wanted to pay illegal gratification to them, I contacted the Vigilance Department and moved an application Ex.PA on 28.9.2006 to DIG, S.V.B., Ambala.” State counsel has argued that the Special Court can take cognizance of the offence as per provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C. whenever it is brought to the notice of the Court that offence under Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed by a particular accused. I do not find any force in the said contention as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. If special provision has been made pertaining to a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provisions. The provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an over-riding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 Cr.P.C. or Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Special Judge while trying an offence under the Act cannot summon an additional accused to proceed against him in the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if no sanction has been granted by the appropriate Crl. Rev. No. 2727 of 2008 [5] authority for prosecution of such a person, as no cognizance can be taken for offence under the Act unless there exist a sanction. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The order of framing charge under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act on the basis of summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed being an abuse of the process of the Court. May 5, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE