Crl.Rev.No. 1020 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1020 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2011 Arun Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the complainant-petitioner challenging the order dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure P-4), whereby the cancellation report was accepted and the accused was discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court should have taken the cognizance of the dispute as the complainant-petitioner was still supporting the prosecution case. Respondent No.2 had been caught red handed while accepting bribe. Crl.Rev.No. 1020 of 2011 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, FIR in question was registered at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner had made a statement that he had applied to the department of pollution control board for according sanction qua his factory. Respondent No.2, however, raised a demand of ` 15,000/- to do the needful. The petitioner along with his friend Rakesh Jain approached the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, raid was organised and respondent No.2 was caught red handed, while accepting bribe. After investigation, Investigating Agency submitted the cancellation report. The said report was accepted by the trial Court vide impugned order, wherein it was held as under:- “After going through the above said case laws, I am of the considered opinion that these case laws are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case also no sanction from the competent authority is on the file. Thus, in the absence of sanction from the competent authority, this Court cannot take cognizance of the offence and to proceed against accused since the accused is public servant and no sanction has been granted by the competent authority to prosecute the accused as per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court can neither direct the Investigating Officer to obtain the sanction nor can direct the competent authority to grant the sanction. Investigating Agency cannot be directed to file charge Crl.Rev.No. 1020 of 2011 (O&M) 3 sheet against the accused. So far as the case law cited by the complainant 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 208 (P&H) (DB) supra is concerned, the same is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case the allegations levelled against accused who was Cabinet Minister were that a large number of drag line machines were purchased at the instance of the petitioner (accused) at exorbitant price, which is alleged to have been paid by the State of Haryana for similar machines. Accordingly, Hon'ble High court observed in the said judgment that by no stretch of imagination the allegations in the FIR levelled against the petitioner (accused) could be regarded as having any proximity with the official duties. The whole process of tender by the chief engineer at the instance of the petitioner (accused) is alleged to have been undertaken only with the intention to gain personal benefit and offence are alleged to have been committed under Section 420, 467 IPC and Section 13(1) of the PC Act. Accordingly, Hon'ble High Court observation that no sanction for such allegations is required. In the present case, however, the allegations levelled in the FIR would show that the imputation of various acts alleged to have been committed by the accused are closely related to his official duties and accordingly, sanction is required to be taken from the competent authority. But since no sanction has been accorded in the present case. This Court cannot take Crl.Rev.No. 1020 of 2011 (O&M) 4 cognizance of the offence. Therefore, without going into the contents of the allegations levelled by the complainant and further investigation done by the Vigilance Department while submitting cancellation report, the present cancellation report filed in this case is accepted and accused is discharged from this case. However, the investigating agency is at liberty to proceed against the accused after obtaining sanction from the competent authority.” Since there was no sanction for prosecution of respondent No.2, the trial Court rightly held that it could not take cognizance of the alleged offence. Hence, cancellation report was liable to be accepted. The petitioner has the remedy to file a complaint, if so advised. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 27, 2011 anita