61 0 1 C Rev No 2519 of 2009 1 4 1 iN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH k 5t 4r C Rev No519 of 2009 Date of decision November32009 k k k k 7 SavtanterKumar Verma and another Oe Petitioners C Versus 0 C I State of Punjab C5 Respondent I k k 5 5t Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH C I k 1c 4 9c 08 Present Mr Veneet Sharma Advocate for the petitioner 1 1 Mr P S Sidhu Additional Advocate General Punjab 7 7t ir 9r 4r JORA SINGH J SavtanterKumar Verma and Krishan Kanhayafiled this revISIOIl to impugnthe order dated 1 72009 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge Tarn Taran FlR No40 dated 101 2007 registeredunder Section 7 13 21of Prevention of CorruptionAct 1988 lereinafter referred to asthe Actlwas registeredagainstthe petitioners Brieffacts of the case are that Nishan Singhalongwith Parminder Singhgot their statements recorded to the effect that Rawat Seema 2013.03.19 12: 46 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 0 C Rev No 2519 of 2009 2 e Nishan Singh his brother Bachhitar Singhand mother JoginderKaur have Iand measuring3 acre each in villageCheema khurd Nishan Singhand his mother had to get a Iimit in the Oriental Ban k of Commerce Branch MarimegaBhikhiwindIfor their domestic need due to which JoginderKaur nother of Nishan Singhlhad givena 1 powerof attorneyof her Iand to Nishan Singh For gettingthe Iimit 0 Nishan Singh met Sh S Verma the Managerof the aforesaid CA3 Bank On 812 2007 S K Verma told him that in case you want to get I C5 a Iimit then you talk to cashier Krishan Kanhayaand on the same day I Nishan Singhrequestedchashier Krishan Kanhayafor grantof Iimit Z Cashier Krishan Kanhayatook the Fard Jamabandi and other record and after checkingit keptit with him Krishan Kanhayatold Nishan I Singhthat the record is allrightbut in case he wants the Iimit then he otj will have to pay Rs10000 Nishan Singh told about the entire incidentto his friend Parminder Singh He advised Nishan Singhthat a7 Z these kind of corruptofficials should be got caughtby the Vigilance r Department After investigationcancellation report dated 22 12 2008 Annexure P was submed Cancellation report was not acceptedand vide order dated 192009 lnexure PI Special Judgeobserved that a primafacie case is made out to frame charge 1 under Section 7 read with Section 1321Cr P C Learned counsel for the petitionerarguedthat Fl R No 40 dated 101 22007 under the Act was registeredagainst the but after investigationcancellation repottwas subrnitted VVithoutsanction SpecialJudgeordered to frame charge vide order Rawat Seema 2013.03.19 12: 46 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 0 C Rev No 2519 of 2009 3 V Annexure P21 is not Iegaion e in the eyes of Iaw In Ashok Mehta and another vslam Ashrav Sinqh and others 200621 RCR fCrll 330 pubiicservant was prosecutedin corruptioncase Itwas held by the Honble SupremeCourt that Court can consider the complaint onlyafter sanction is obtained m r In Dilawar Sinqh a Parvinder Sinqh Iqbal Sinqh 0 and another 2005 l41 RCR Criminall 855 publicservant was C prosecutedin corruptioncase Sanction for prosecutionaccorded by I C9 competentauthorityunder Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption I Act Another publicservant added as accessed under Section 319 Z Cr P C It was held that Court cannot take cognizancewithout tr sanction for prosecutionSanction for prosecutionhas to be granted I with respectto a specificaccused 08 In Dr Jaswant Sinqh and others e State of Puniab and another 2006 41 RCR Crimina0 525 public servant was 7 prosecutedin corruptioncase Sufficient material againstaccused tl but police submittingcanceilation report as competentauthority refused to grant sanction for prosecutiorourt cannot take for want of sanction even if it formed a view that there was evidence againstthe accused Learned State counsel simplyarguedthat case was under the Act againstpublicservant While performing official duties public servant had accepted illegal gratification Acceptanceof illegatgratificationis not a part of public duty Cognizancewas rightlytaken by the SpeciaI Judge after the submissionof canceltation report But in suppon of this contention Rawat Seema 2013.03.19 12: 46 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 0 C0 Rev No519 of 2009 4 dV Iearned State counsel failed to cite any authority lJ 1n the Iightof the above discussion impugedorder dated 1 7 2009 rendered byAdditionaI Sessions Judgelmpecial Judge Tarn Taran is set aside Petition is allowed II 4 0 November302009 1 SINGH 1 C ritu JUDGE C5 I Z 1 c6 W2 0 Z 0m Rawat Seema 2013.03.19 12: 46 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document