Criminal Revision No. 1041 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1041 of 2006 Date of decision:- 3.12.2008 SPO Ranbir Singh ...petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Ranbir Singh, petitioner, who was at the relevant time serving as SPO with the Inspector Tripta Sood, Incharge, Women Cell, Patiala has filed this revision petition to impugn the order framing the charge against him under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the P.C. Act). A complaint was made by Simarjit Kaur wife of Malkiat Singh of village Alipur Kheh Jattan, tehsil and district Patiala before lady Inspector Tripta Sood, Incharge of Women Cell, Patiala regarding the matrimonial dispute of her daughter with her in-laws. It is alleged that Inspector Tripta Sood demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- but deal was struck for Rs. 5,000/-. The demand for bribe was made on the ground that she will take appropriate action on the complaint. The complainant was not interested in paying this illegal gratification and accordingly approached Criminal Revision No. 1041 of 2006 2 Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-2, Patiala on 20.10.2004. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant FIR No. 52 was registered on 20.10.2004 against lady Inspector Tripta Sood. The complainant handed over the currency notes to Inspector Tripta Sood which she accepted and thereafter handed these over to his Orderly i.e. the petitioner. The shadow witness Harminder Singh gave a signal to the raiding party which accordingly came to the scene and recovered the tainted money from the petitioner. Upon hand wash of Inspector Tripta Sood phenophthalien powder solution turned pink. The petitioner and Tripta Sood were accused of the offences and investigation completed. The case was then put up before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala for consideration of grant for sanction for prosecution of Inspector Tripta Sood. She being a public servant the requirement of sanction is essential in terms of Section 19 of Prevention of P.C. Act. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala, however, declined the sanction for prosecution of Inspector Tripta Sood. Copy of this order is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. Services of petitioner, he being a SPO were terminated on 29.10.2004. He as such was not a public servant and hence sanction for his prosecution was not needed. He is being prosecuted. When the matter came before the Special Judge, Patiala, Inspector Tripta Sood filed an application for her discharge. The challan was presented against Ranbir Singh only. Inspector Tripta Sood was placed in column No.2. This was primarily on the ground that the competent authority had not given sanction to prosecute Inspector Tripta Sood. On 21.1.2006 Tripta Sood was ordered to be released forthwith from the case Criminal Revision No. 1041 of 2006 3 with further direction that she will be called as and when the prosecution got the sanction to prosecute the said accused. The charge against the present petitioner was framed under the sections as noticed above. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed present revision petition impugning the said order. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that he is not the one who had accepted or demanded this bribe. The petitioner claimed that he was just working as Orderly of Inspector Tripta Sood. He had no concern with the registration of the FIR or any action that was to be taken thereon. Merely because he is not a public servant cannot lead to his prosecution, specially so when the main allegation is against Inspector Tripta Sood. On 25.7.2006 this revision was admitted and further proceedings against the petitioner stayed. The revision petition has now come up for hearing in terms of the admission order passed. Earlier on 16.8.2008, this revision petition was heard by a Bench of this Court when a detailed reference to the facts as noticed above was made leading to passing of the order declining sanction for prosecution of Inspector Tripta Sood. The Court observed that before taking any further action it would be appropriate to requisition the entire record of the trial Court to see as to what order has been passed by the Court after receiving the letter from Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, which was addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-2, Patiala. The requisitioned record has been received and the same is perused. There is no indication of any action that might have been taken by either Deputy Inspector General of Police or Superintendent of Police on receipt of the order declining the sanction. Apparently the Criminal Revision No. 1041 of 2006 4 Court has not also passed any order for further action on this aspect. It has to be seen whether the order framing the charge against the petitioner in the background as aforementioned can be sustained or not. It appears that the petitioner is not the one who had demanded this bribe. Even as per allegation, he is not the one who had accepted this amount. The case of the prosecution is that this demand was made by Inspector Tripta Sood. She was the one who had accepted the amount and had handed over the same to the petitioner, his Orderly from whom it was recovered. Can in this background, it be said that there is any prima facie material to frame a charge against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act? Though the challan against the petitioner was presented but it is still required to be seen by the Court if there is material which would prima facie indicate commission of offence on the part of the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner could have been framed only if the Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie material connecting the petitioner with the commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appropriately, the Court was bound to see if the charge could be framed against the petitioner in the absence of Inspector Tripta Sood being an accused before the Court. It may not sound proper for this Court to make comment on the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, who has declined the sanction for prosecution of Inspector Tripta Sood. Special Judge should have seen this aspect in stead of blindly accepting the position and relieving the main accused Inspector Tripta Sood. Appropriately, the Court could see if it would be having any legal authority to take action or issue some direction in regard to the order declining sanction of prosecution of Inspector Tripta Sood. It is not clear if Criminal Revision No. 1041 of 2006 5 the State authorities are satisfied with the order declining sanction of prosecution of Inspector Tripta Sood. The order framing the charge against the petitioner has not received the attention of the trial Court/Special Judge in an appropriate manner. The Court has to see if there is any material to frame charge against the petitioner. The case is, accordingly, sent back to the Court of Special Judge, Patiala to reconsider if the charge under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act can be framed against the petitioner on the basis of material that is collected. Would the material indicate prima facie case against him? The Court would also be at liberty to see if it would have any jurisdiction to interfere in the order declining the sanction of prosecution of Inspector Tripta Sood and pass any appropriate order after affording opportunity of the hearing to said Inspector. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. . The record of the trial Court which was requisitioned be immediately sent back by the Registry of this Court. December 03, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE