The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the power of review by the competent authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the need for fresh material or technical infirmity to justify the review of an earlier order.

JUDGMENT

S.S. Nijjar, J. (Oral) - In this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 25 dated 7.4.98 under Sections 7.13(1) D read with Section 13(2)88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) and consequential proceedings pending in the Court of Special Judge.

2. The petitioner is a doctor. At present, she is posted as Medical Officer in ESI Hospital, Phagwara. She joined Government service on 20.7.82. According to the petitioner, her service record has remained unblemished. No adverse entry has been communicated to the petitioner. It is her case that she has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. According to the FIR, one Balwinder Kaur wife of Harkamal resident of village Jandiali, Teh. and Distt. Nawanshahar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was in need of an abortion. She alongwith her husband went to government hospital, Phagwara on 9.3.98. There they contacted the petitioner who was posted as Medical Officer. The petitioner checked the complainant and agreed to undertake the abortion on payment of Rs. 2000/- as bribe. Ultimately, a deal was struck at Rs. 1700/-. Out of this, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 900/- there and then. She agreed to pay the remaining amount in instalments. Even in the FIR, it is stated that after taking medicine, the complainant came back to her house. She, thereafter states, "On the next day I bleeded and abortion also occurred". She thereafter went to the petitioner for further medical check up. The complainant was told to bring the remaining Rs. 800/- so that she could be medically examined. On 4.4.98, the complainant paid a further sum of Rs. 400/- and she was checked. Certain medicines were also given to the complainant. She, however, expressed her inability to pay the remaining Rs. 400/-. Thereafter, whilst coming home, the complainant and her husband decided to make a complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, the complainant and her husband went to the Vigilance Bureau and arrangements were made for laying a trap for the petitioner. The complainant had given four one hundred rupee notes to D.S.P. Sukhdev Singh. After treating the same with "phenolphthalein" powder, they were given to the complainant to be handed over to the petitioner in due course. Thereafter, the raiding party came to the hospital. The husband of the complainant acted as a shadow witness. He was to make a signal to the raiding party when the money had been paid by the complainant to the petitioner. The raid was conducted successfully and the FIR was registered. After investigation into the case, the Vigilance Bureau sent the papers to the competent authority for according sanction as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The entire material collected against the petitioner was sent to the competent authority. The record consisted of checking memo pages 1-4, police file pages 1-84 and challan pages 1-140. After examining the entire matter, the competent authority declined to give sanction. Prior to passing the order declining the sanction, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. This was necessitated as the petitioner had made a number of representations to the higher authorities stating therein that she had been falsely implicated. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 23.6.99. The letter dated 16.6.99 giving the petitioner opportunity for personal hearing is attached with the petitioner as Annexure P-2.

3. According to the petitioner, without there being any change in the circumstances, the whole matter seems to have been reconsidered and reviewed. Now by order Annexure P-4 dated 29.7.2000, sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioner. On 23.11.2000, this court issued notice of motion and stayed the further proceedings before the trial Court. At the same time, the counsel for the State was d