The power of review cannot be used to correct an erroneous view taken on the facts of a particular case, and a valid sanction is essential for the court to take cognizance of the offence.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order (Annexure P-3) whereby sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in case FIR No. 54 dated 5.11.2003 under Sections 7/13(2) 88 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda Range, Bathinda, has been granted.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the year 2003, petitioner Harbans Lal was working as an Accountant in the Head Post Office, Faridkot and was also having charge of Assistant Post Master. Shri R.Prince Narula, respondent No.2, a small savings agent, was also working at Faridkot. On the complaint filed by respondent No.2, FIR No. 54 dated 5.11.2003 was registered under Section 7/13(2) 88 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda for acceptance of Rs.500/-as bribe from him. The investigation of the case was conducted into the allegations against the petitioner by Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Faridkot and the petitioner was found innocent. After investigation, the vigilance bureau submitted the case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The competent authority after considering the record of the investigation as well as departmental inquiry conducted by Assistant Superintendent, Post Office Faridkot and inquiry conducted by District Magistrate, Faridkot, refused to grant sanction vide order dated 9.3.2004. Later on, on the basis of another reference made, the competent authority vide letter dated 28.7.2004 after consulting the inquiry conducted by vigilance department as well as District Magistrate and Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Faridkot, found the petitioner innocent.

3. Accordingly, on the directions of Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), submitted cancellation report before the Sessions Judge, which was not accepted.

4. Ultimately, the Superintendent Post Office, granted sanction vide order Annexure P-3, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Shri H.S.Gill, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the sanction order Annexure P-3 on various grounds. He argued that senior officers of the Post Office Department i.e. Assistant Superintendent conducted the departmental inquiry into the allegations, and found the petitioner innocent and in the inquiry report itself, the petitioner was found to be a dedicated worker. It has also been mentioned therein that complainant Shri R.Prince Narula is a person of bad character and was instrumental in getting wrong things done through the petitioner, which the petitioner refused to do so. It was further argued by Mr. Gill that the District Magistrate had got the inquiry conducted into the allegations against the petitioner, but it was found that the petitioner was wrongly involved in a false case. The matter was put up before the competent authority for grant of sanction which was declined by holding that the petitioner has falsely been implicated. Subsequently also, the matter was referred to the competent authority for grant of sanction, but the same was declined vide order Annexure P-2.

6. Mr. Gill, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued that grant of sanction for prosecution in such cases is not simply a formality but a statutory function and the said power is to be exercised after thorough consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and that power once exercised cannot be reviewed by the same or another authority. Mr. Gill further argued that the trial Court cannot take cognizance of offence without grant of valid sanction by the competent authority and, therefore, the proceedings before the trial Court are liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgments reported in Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another 2001(2) RCR (Crl.) 58; Mallikarjun Basalinagappa Balipadi Vs. State of Karnataka 2005(2