Crl.Rev.No.1805 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1805 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.1.2010 Sharanjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab **** SABINA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Rupnagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge was dismissed and consequently order framing of charge under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') was passed. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of a raid conducted by the Vigilance Department on the petitioner, who had allegedly demanded Rs.5,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification to allow him to pick up the material purchased by him. Crl.Rev.No.1805 of 2006 (O&M) 2 On the basis of the raid, the money was recovered from the left pocket of the coat of the petitioner. When the hands of the petitioner were washed in a solution of phenol phathalein powder, the colour of the solution turned pink. After completion of investigation, necessary formalities and receipt of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, challan was presented against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although initially sanction for prosecution of the petitioner had been granted by the competent authority but later on the matter had been re-considered by the competent authority and the sanction for prosecution was withdrawn. Learned counsel has further submitted that the competent authority was competent to re-consider the matter relating to grant of sanction for prosecution. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dilbag Singh vs. State of Punjab 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 532, wherein it was held that the order of the Government refusing to grant sanction had been passed without application of mind and hence, the fresh order granting sanction to prosecute was not illegal. Similar view was taken by this Court in Bhagwan Dass vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 781 and Dr.Gurmail Singh Mauji vs. State of Punjab, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 103. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rightly dismissed by the Special Judge. Crl.Rev.No.1805 of 2006 (O&M) 3 In the present case the petitioner was working as Managing Director of Sugar Mill, Morinda. He demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for allowing the complainant to lift the scrap/material purchased by him. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant, a raid was organised and the petitioner was apprehended with the bribe money, which was recovered from the left pocket of the coat of the petitioner. The competent authority granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner. After completion of investigation, cancellation report was submitted by the Vigilance Department but the same was not accepted by the Special Judge and the matter was remanded back for further investigation. Thereafter, challan was presented against the petitioner. The competent authority granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner on 29.5.2004. However, the said sanction accorded by the competent authority was withdrawn vide order dated 13.7.2005 after presentation of challan. Once the Special Judge had taken cognizance of the matter, the order passed by the competent authority withdrawing its sanction could not be taken in consideration to discharge the petitioner. As per Section 19 of the Act, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority. The Special Judge had, thus, taken cognizance of the matter after sanction had been granted by the competent authority. The fact of withdrawal of Crl.Rev.No.1805 of 2006 (O&M) 4 sanction during the pendency of the trial would be gone into after the conclusion of the trial. At this stage, it was not appropriate to discharge the petitioner. Learned Special Judge had, thus, rightly dismissed the application for discharge filed by the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 18, 2010 anita