Crl. Misc. No. M-10379 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10379 of 2010 Date of decision : 01.11.2011 Surjit Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(Oral) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 18/2002 dated 24.3.2002 under Sections 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474/120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that no prosecution sanction has been granted by the competent authority rather the same has been declined vide order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-13) qua the petitioner before the presentation of challan dated 26.2.2010 and thereafter cognizance taken by the Court is not legally sustainable in the light of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that FIR deserve to be quashed in the light of non-grant of sanction by the competent authority for prosecution of the petitioner and in any case the Court could not have taken cognizance and the proceedings taken by the trial Court Crl. Misc. No. M-10379 of 2010 2 against the petitioner, thus, cannot be sustained. He has further contended that even if the petitioner had retired from service still sanction for prosecution would be required where it has been declined by the competent authority in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das vs. State of Orissa 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 512. Accordingly he prays for grant of relief as prayed for in the present petition. Counsel for the State submits that the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the offences, as alleged to have been committed therein, are made out against the petitioner. He, however, could not dispute the factual assertion made by the counsel for the petitioner that sanction for prosecution was declined qua the petitioner vide order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-13) whereas the challan was presented on 26.2.2010, although, the petitioner retired on 30.6.2003. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. FIR in the case in hand qua the petitioner cannot be quashed for the reason that a bare reading of the FIR discloses commission of offence qua the petitioner. However, in the light of the refusal for sanction for prosecution of the petitioner vide order dated 17.8.2009 by the competent authority the Court could not take cognizance qua the petitioner in the light of Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The petitioner had retired on 30.6.2003, but on the date when the challan was presented i.e. 26.2.2010 there was no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner rather it was specifically denied vide order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-13). It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent-State that till date no sanction to prosecute the petitioner has been granted by the competent authority. In any case, in the light of the judgment of the Crl. Misc. No. M-10379 of 2010 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chittaranjan Das case (supra), the Court cannot take cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner without sanction, despite his retirement from service, in the light of the order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-13) passed by the competent authority declining sanction to prosecute. The proceedings, therefore, taken qua the petitioner by the trial Court against him in the light of decline of sanction and the provision as contained under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, cannot sustain and are hereby quashed. Present petition is allowed in the above terms. 01.11.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE