IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15011 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 17, 2010. Dr.Bhupesh Kumar Goel .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is serving as a Veterinary Doctor in the Animal Husbandry, Fishing Farming and Dairy Development Department, Government of Punjab, seeks quashing of the order dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby respondent No.2, on re-consideration, has accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in case FIR No.75 dated 10.12.2005, under Sections 7, 13 (2), 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. [2] The above-stated FIR was registered on the statement of one Mann Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of Village Sahijpura Khurd, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, who is stated to be an agriculturist and a C.W.P.No .15011 of 2008 2 milkman. The complainant had purchased six buffaloes after obtaining loan from the State Government and got his buffaloes insured. On 9.11.2005, one of his buffaloes suddenly died allegedly because of snake- bite. He brought this fact to the notice of the petitioner who at that point of time was posted as Veterinary Doctor at the Veterinary Hospital, Samana, District Patiala. The petitioner conducted the post-mortem of the dead buffalo of the complainant. The complainant meanwhile approached the Insurance authorities to seek insurance claim for his dead buffalo and was advised by them to approach the petitioner to get the post-mortem report and photographs of the dead buffalo to submit his claim. The complainant is said to have submitted the duly filled-in forms to the petitioner at the Veterinary Hospital, Samana and the petitioner is said to have told the complainant to come after 3-4 days. On 9.12.2005, when the complainant reached the Veterinary Hospital, Samana to get the requisite report regarding the death of his buffalo, the petitioner is alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.1500/- from the complainant-farmer for submitting a favourable report. He further told the complainant to come the next day . i.e., on 10.12.2005 and bring Rs.1500/- and then only the favourable report shall be given to him. The complainant allegedly pretended to do the petitioner's bidding and thereafter contacted the police authorities of P.S. Sadar, Samana, who took the complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Samana where his statement was recorded. The Vigilance Bureau, Patiala laid a trap and requested Vinod Kumar, B.D.P.O. Patran and Kushwinder Kumar, Accountant, office of the C.W.P.No .15011 of 2008 3 B.D.P.O. Patran, to remain present as independent witnesses. They were introduced to the complainant and his accomplice Kulwant Singh. Currency notes amounting to Rs.1000/- i.e. one note to the denomination of Rs.500/- and 5 notes to the denomination of Rs.100/- each were sprinkled with phenyl-pathogen powder and were handed over to the complainant after ensuring that he had no other money. The complainant was advised to hand-over the above said currency notes to the petitioner as and when he demanded them and not to shake hands with him. The necessary formalities were complied with. [3] The FIR further states that as per the laid out plan, the complainant was sent to the petitioner with an advice to raise his right hand above his head to give a signal to the raiding party before the petitioner could accept the bribe. The trap went successful as the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed accepting bribe from the complainant. [4] After investigation, the Vigilance Bureau applied for statutory sanction under Section 19 of the Act, which was however, declined by the State Government vide an order dated 12.2.2007, inter-alia, for the following reasons:- “......5. That whereas the question of taking bribe in lieu of post-mortem report is concerned, original postmortem report was not recovered from the Vetenary Officer but a photocopy of the same was alleged to be recovered from the drawer. On this postmortem report, signatures of the Vetenary Officer was of date 9.11.2005 and Vigilance case was registered on 10.12.2005. In addition to this, the fee for the postmortem report had C.W.P.No .15011 of 2008 4 already been deposited with Senior Vetenary Officer Samana in November, 2005. It is clear that postmortem report has already been issued. Then, for what the complainant gave bribe. In this way, there is no ground for a case of bribe. 6. That it is alleged by the complainant that his buffalo died because of snake bite whereas as per the postmortem report his buffalo died because of Parakaunt Taripano Semi Asies disease. Dr.Bhupesh Kumar Goel stated in his application that complainant wants to get a new postmortem report prepared in which reason for death be shown as snake biting instead of any disease. But on his refusal this conspiracy was hatched. It came out that the complainant after obtaining the postmortem report might have pressurized the above vetenary officer to change the postmortem report and to show the cause of death as snake biting instead of any disease and on his refusal this conspiracy might have been hatched....” [5] The then Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Department concluded that “the complainant intentionally hatched this conspiracy to involve Dr.Bhupesh Kumar Goel, Vetenary Officer in this false case of bribe”. [6] The Vigilance Bureau, having noticed that both the reasons assigned by the Competent Authority to decline sanction to prosecute the petitioner, were contrary to the record, submitted a fresh proposal to the State Government demonstrating that: (i) the postmortem report of the dead buffalo though was prepared by the petitioner on 9.11.2005 but the Insurance claim forms (Pages 23-24) were signed and attested by him C.W.P.No .15011 of 2008 5 alongwith the photographs (pages 28-29) on the date of the raid and he had demanded the money in lieu of filling and signing those forms; (ii) the petitioner's plea that the complainant-farmer wanted the petitioner to change the cause of death of the buffalo from `ailment' to `snake bite' so as to claim compensation from the Insurance Company, is also false on the face of it as even if the buffalo of the complainant had died of some ailment, as mentioned in the postmortem report, yet he would have received the same amount of compensation as if his buffalo had died due to the snake bite. [7] Having found substance in the reasons put-forth by the Vigilance Bureau, the Competent Authority re-considered the matter and has accorded sanction “to prosecute the petitioner” vide the impugned order dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-3). [8] Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [9] Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply-affidavit. Certain documents have also been relied upon during the course of hearing and the same have been perused. [10] It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that once the Competent Authority had refused to accord sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner, it cannot review its decision unless the matter is re- investigated and/or some fresh material is produced by the Investigating Agency. Secondly, once the Competent Authority has exercised its discretion while granting or refusing the sanction, the exercise of its power C.W.P.No .15011 of 2008 6 under the Act stands exhausted and there is no express rule to enable it to review the previous order. [11] It goes without saying that grant of sanction or refusal to prosecute under the Act by the Competent Authority is an onerous duty to be performed objectively upon consideration of the entire material on record. If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the object of launching prosecution is to persecute a Government servant for his straight forwardness and transparent performance of duties who refuses to extend illegitimate favour to the complainant or in whom the complainant is interested, the Competent Authority shall come forward and protect such Government servant. The power vested with the Competent Authority, however, does not clothe it with the judicial jurisdiction to pronounce a verdict in respect of innocence or false-hood of the allegations. The Competent Authority cannot assume in itself the jurisdiction which is otherwise vested with the Special Judge under the provisions of the Act. It would necessarily imply that where-ever the material collected by the prosecution is, prima-facie, sufficient to launch prosecution, the Competent Authority shall not pre-emt the Special Court from giving its verdict. [12] It is equally well settled that once the Competent Authority has applied its mind to the material on record and arrived at a conclusion that no case of prosecution is made out, ordinarily, it cannot review its decision unless the new material is collected by way of re-investigation and/or the prosecution produces some material which was not taken into C.W.P.No .15011 of 2008 7 consideration earlier while declining the sanction. [13] If one applies these parameters to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it appears that while declining the sanction, the Competent Authority did fail to consider the material aspect that in terms of the Insurance Scheme, the complainant would have got the equal amount of compensation for the death of his buffalo. This, by itself, tantamounts to over-looking the material on record warranting re- consideration. The Competent Authority also appears to be justified in observing that the petitioner's claim that the complainant on his own or on coaxing kept the amount of Rs.1000/- in his drawer, cannot be accepted at this stage for the apparent reason that the Almirah/drawer of the petitioner was locked at that point of time and the money is alleged to be handed over to him only. If these facts were to be true, there was no occasion for the complainant to forcibly put the amount in the drawer of the petitioner, as alleged. [14] The matter has, thus, been re-considered by the Competent Authority as gagging of the prosecution or the consequential proceedings at this juncture would manifest injustice especially when the version of the independent witnesses against whom there is not even a whisper by the petitioner, is yet to be recorded and tested. [15] The impugned action, thus, causes no exception to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of Punjab and another versus Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti (2009 (3) RCR (Criminal 861 and by a Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh C.W.P.No .15011 of 2008 8 versus State of Punjab and others, (1980) 1, I.L.R. (Punjab & Haryana) 11, as well as in two subsequent decisions of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh Dhingra versus State of Punjab, 2005 (3) RSJ 315 and Harbans Lal versus State of Punjab and another, 2009 2) RCR (Criminal) 305. [16] For the reasons afore-stated, I am of the considered view that there existed sufficient material which was earlier over-looked by the Competent Authority and on re-consideration thereof, it has rightly re- called its previous decision. However, the observations regarding innocence and/or incriminating behaviour of the petitioner alleged by the Competent Authority in its previous and subsequent orders or the observations made herein-above are wholly in-consequential and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. [17] With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed but no order as to costs. March 17, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE