Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 681
2012(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-28456 of 2011
Amarjit Singh (Patwari)
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 23/05/2012}
For the Petitioner:Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Brar, D.A.G. Punjab.
Sanction for prosecution--Public servants, who are liable to be removed by lower/subordinate authority than the Government, they indeed are and would not at all be entitled to such protection.
Sanction for prosecution--Petitioner was working as Patwari at the relevant time/place and was removable by the District Collector (not by the State government), so, no prior sanction is required to prosecute him.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.19--Sanction for prosecution--Indeed only those public servants of the Central or the State Governments, as the case may be, are entitled to the umbrella of protection under section 19 of the P.C. Act, who are employed in connection with the affairs and are removable by the respective Governments and not otherwise--Meaning thereby, the public servants, who are liable to be removed by lower/subordinate authority than the Government, they indeed are and would not at all be entitled to such protection.
A conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions of Section 19 of the P.C. Act would reveal that the sanction is only required in case of a person, who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and (+) is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government and not otherwise--The words “not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government” are most important, carry a very significant intent & meaning and is most essential ingredient to invoke the protection as contemplated under Section 19 of the P.C. Act (emphasis supplied)--The entire provision has to be conjunctively (not disjunctively) construed as such and cannot be read in isolation--The intention of the legislature is very clear and intended to protect only those pubic servants, who are removable from their office by the State Government and not otherwise. (Para 34)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.19--Sanction for prosecution--Petitioner was working as Patwari at the relevant time/place and was removable by the District Collector (not by the State government), so, no prior sanction is required to prosecute him.
(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.19--Sanction for prosecution--Classification--Submission that no such classification can be made by the legislature that the persons, who are removable by the Central or State Governments, as the case may be, are entitled to protection under this section and other categories of persons, who are liable to be removed by some subordinate authorities, are not entitled for this benefit, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. (Para 25)
(D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.19--Sanction for prosecution--Issuance of summoning order--Quashing--How and in what manner, the absence of sanction at this state has occasioned or resulted in the failure of justice and prejudiced the case of petitioner in any manner--Not pointed out--Impugned order cannot be quashed--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482. (Para 36)
Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - Exhibiting the deep concern with regard to the corruption in public life, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Billa Nagul Sharief v. State of A.P., [2010(4) Law Herald (SC) 2628] : 2010(11) SCC 575, has noticed the feeling of a common man that “when the work is enshrined to different persons bribe is demanded by one of them, when all are invariably in collusion, cannot be lost sight of. If Senior Officers ensure that the works of the citizens are done without payment of bribe, Junior Officers and employee may abandon the demand and this country would not have prominently figured as one of the most corrupt nations of the World, as it is widely accepted that the corruption flows from the top.” The enactments of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the P.C.Act) and The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 are the appropriate steps in the right direction to eradicate the corrupt practice by certain categories of public servants and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. India is passing through a very crucial phase of corruption. Perhaps, time has now come to take effective steps to control it, but, in the present case, the Vigilance Department of State of Punjab prima facie does not appear to be very serious in this relevant connection.
2. Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, petitioner Amarjit Singh son of Surain Singh, was employed and working as a Patwari at the relevant time in the area of Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur, in relation to the affairs of the revenue department of State of Punjab. He demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- as bribe from complainant Raj Kumar son of Ajit Singh (for brevity “the complainant”) as illegal gratification, for sanctioning the mutation in question. Dissatisfied with the conduct of the Patwari, the complainant informed the Vigilance Department. A raiding party was prepared. Having followed the established procedure, a raid was conducted on 2.2.2005. In pursuance of the raid, the petitioner was caught red handed, while accepting the illegal gratification of the indicated amount from the complainant and bribe money of Rs.2000/- was recovered at the spot. All the requisite formalities were completed and evidence was collected at the spot by the police of Vigilance Department. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by means of FIR No.9 dated 2.2.2005, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act by the police of Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur.
3. Although the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the illegal gratification and amount of bribe money of Rs.2000/- was recovered at the spot, but subsequently, the Vigilance Bureau just ignored the entire evidence with impunity and submitted the cancellation reports (Annexures P4 & P6) in a very casual manner. As soon as, the complainant came to know, in the meantime, he opposed the cancellation reports on the ground that Amarjit Singh, Patwari (petitioner) has accepted the bribe money from him in the presence of shadow witness Hardev Singh. He handed over the money, which was duly recovered from his agent Gulzar Singh at the spot. Thus, the petitioner has committed the pointed offences. In this manner, the complainant prayed for rejection of the cancellation reports.
4. Taking the entire evidence and seriousness of the corruption case, into focus, the Special Judge, while disagreeing with the cancellation reports filed by the prosecution, referred the matter for further deep probe by the officer, not below the rank of SP Vigilance and for further investigation, by virtue of orders dated 3.5.2008 (Annexure P5) & 31.3.2010 (Annexu
