Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.4.2009 Kamlesh Kumari ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Panag, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by Kamlesh Kumari under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of the order dated 19.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Special Judge, Ludhiana in case FIR No. 44 dated 31.5.2002, under Section 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Patiala. Learned Special judge, Ludhiana, in para 4 of the impugned order, observed as under:- “After considering the submission, I am of the view that Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.5.2004 directed this Court to decide at the first instance the question whether accused Varinder Paul Singh, Majoj Kumar Khosla and Jatinder Singh can be prosecuted in the absence of sanction. In the challan, it is written that no case is made out against them but it was recommended to take departmental action against them. Show Cause Notices have been issued to them by the department concerned. Copies of the same were on the file. Inc ase Janardhan Dass Gram Sachiv vs. Prem Chand Ex.Sarpanch and ors., cited supra, there were allegations against Gram Sachiv of corruption, bribe and illegal gratification. It was held that previous sanction of the Government is necessary for his prosecution. It was held that previous sanction of the Government is necessary for his prosecution. The complainant must approach the competent authority of the accused first. The court cannot take cognizance of the offence. In case Romesh Lal Jain vs. Naginder Singh Rana and Ors., cited supra, police officer accepted under Essential Commodities Act, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that no sanction for prosecution is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Sanction would however be required under Section 19 of the Corruption Act. It was further held that plea of want of Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) 3 sanction although desirable should be considered at an early stage of the proceedings but same would not mean that accused cannot take the said plea or the Court cannot consider the same at a later stage. Admittedly in the instant case, there is no sanction of the competent authority to prosecute the accused Varinder Paul Singh, Manoj Kumar Khosla and Jatinder Singh under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the absence of sanction, charge cannot be framed against the accused. So, the accused Varinder Paul Singh, Majoj Kumar Khosla and Jatinder Singh are hereby discharged at this stage. However, the complainant is free to apply for sanction to the competent authority and then to proceed against the accused in accordance with law.” Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were discharged vide impugned order as there was no sanction for their prosecution by the competent authority. At the time of presentation of challan, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were kept in column No.2 and they were summoned to face trial on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. The prosecution did not apply for sanction to prosecute respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in terms of the order of the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana to the competent authority. The petitioner has filed this petition after more than three years of passing Criminal Misc. No.M-11737 of 2009 (O&M) 4 of the impugned order. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 30, 2009 anita