CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1657 OF 2004 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 26, 2008 Jatinder Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS State of U.T., Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T., Chandigarh. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner, Jatinder Kaur, was posted as a Cashier in Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. It is alleged that while being posted as Clerk, she received a sum of Rs.67,309/- as water charges against the bill raised in favour of Haryana Raj Bhawan on 7.9.1999. She issued original receipt for the said amount but actually entered Rs.7/- on the duplicate and triplicate copy of the receipt. The remaining amount was deposited by her on 15.10.1999. It is on this basis alleged that she has committed a fraud and criminal mis- CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1657 OF 2004 :{ 2 }: appropriation, though may be temporary. Subsequently, enquiry was also got conducted by the Vigilance Cell and the S.S.P., Vigilance, accordingly lodged the complaint. This was also investigated and challan was presented in the Court for the purpose of trial. The petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, “the Act”). When the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge, she filed an application, Annexure P-3, for her discharge on the ground that she was being prosecuted for offence under Section 13 of the Act without obtaining valid sanction from the competent authority. It is alleged that the petitioner was in service, when she committed offence. She was subsequently reinstated in service and as such, she could not be prosecuted without obtaining sanction as envisaged under Section 19 of the Act. The Special Judge noticed various judgments cited before him and also the fact that the petitioner was not in service on the date of presentation of challan in the Court. He accordingly has observed that sanction under Section 19 of the Act would not be needed in this case. It may need a notice that the petitioner was departmentally proceeded against and was dismissed from service on 18.10.2002. She impugned her order of termination, which was set-aside and she was reinstated on 19.6.2003. Challan in this case was presented on 21.4.2003. It is, thus, seen that on the date the challan was presented, the petitioner was not in service. Though subsequently she was reinstated but that would also not make any CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1657 OF 2004 :{ 3 }: difference as is held in the case of B.S.Goraya Vs. U.T. Administration, 1998 (4) RCR (Criminal) 778. The contention of the petitioner is that challan was not presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction and ultimately the same was presented before the Court of Special Judge, Chandigarh, on 12.8.2003, to urge that it can not be said that on the date the challan was presented, the petitioner was not in service. The ratio of law as laid down in B.S.Goraya's case (supra) has subsequently been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court and is reported as B.S.Goraya Vs. U.T. Of Chandigarh, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 882. In this case also, issue was of a sanction in a case where public servant was dismissed from service and challan against him submitted without obtaining sanction and Court took cognizance. Public servant reinstated during trial. It is held that sanction for prosecution is not required in such a case. The contention that the public servant would be deemed to be in service when cognizance taken and hence, the protection under Section 19 of the Act would be available to him, is repelled. Similar contentions were earlier repelled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Dharmadatan Vs. Central Govt. & Ors., 1979 (4) SCC 204. It is also to be noted that apart from Section 13 of the Act, the petitioner is facing prosecution for various other offences, which can be tried without necessity of obtaining any sanction. The provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act may also need to be noticed here. Section 19(3) of the Act clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no finding, sentence or order passed by a CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1657 OF 2004 :{ 4 }: special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub- section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Thus, any order passed by Special Judge is not to be reversed or altered only on the ground that there is absence of or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Without further going into any aspect, I am of the view that order passed by Special Judge would not call for any interference. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. November 26 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE