SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(P&H) 676

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S. Chahal, J.
Anivash Chander Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. 209-M of 1992.
Decided On : 31 August, 1993

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Azad singh, AAG, Haryana.

The sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office.

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - SECTION 19 - VALIDITY OF SANCTION - DELEGATION OF POWERS - CHIEF EXECUTIVE - APPROVAL BY BOARD - SUBSEQUENT SANCTION - EFFECT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Junior Auditor with the Haryana Khadi Gram Udyog, was charged with offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanction for prosecution was granted by the Chief Executive of the Board, who was delegated certain powers by the Board. However, the delegation of powers did not include the power to dismiss an employee, which was necessary for granting sanction under Section 19 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the sanction granted by the Chief Executive was invalid as he did not have the power to grant sanction for prosecution. The subsequent approval by the Board could not validate the proceedings as the trial without a valid sanction was ab initio void.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Executive had the power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Whether the subsequent approval by the Board could validate the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delegation of powers to the Chief Executive did not include the power to dismiss an employee, which was necessary for granting sanction under Section 19 of the Act. 2. A trial without a valid sanction renders the trial ab initio void.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings. However, it left it open to the authorities to obtain a valid sanction and launch prosecution, if so advised.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Chahal, J. - Avinash Chander Sharma by means of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of the police report dated 19-7-1989 Annexure P-1, Charge-sheet, dated 20-2-1990 Annexure P-2 and the proceedings arising out from the police report and the charge-sheet.

2. The facts in the basis of which the prosecution was launched may be briefly stated :-

"Naib Singh complainant made complaint to Ranjit singh, Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala, that his father Dharam Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 5000/- from the Haryana Khadi Gram Udyog, Ambala for installation of lime-kil, on 24-1-1985. This amount was to be repaid in three instalments and he had paid two instalments and only one instalment was remained to be paid which fell due on 24-1-1990. On 10th May, 1989, the petitioner who was working as Junior Auditor in the office of Khadi Gram Udyog visited Sadhaura and gave out threats to the complainant that unless bribe of Rs. 500/- was paid he will make adverse report and also inform the bank to effect recovery alongwith interest at the rate of 20%. Under this threat, Nasib Singh paid a sum of Rs. 100/- to the petitioner and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 400/- to him on 29th May, 1989. The petitioner also gave threat that if this fact was disclosed to any one he would make the case against him and send it to Chandigarh. Since Naib Singh did not want to pay illegal gratification he made his complaint to the Vigilance Inspector. The Inspector after taking currency notes of Rs. 400/- from Naib Singh treated them with phenol-hethline powder and also affixed his own initials and gave them to Singh. The Inspector after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, for conducting investigation, associated Mr. Subash Goel, Magistrate and carried out the raid. On the basis of the evidence collected, the petitioner was sent up for trial and he was charged for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act."

3. The petitioner has challenged the prosecution on the basis that no valid sanction had been granted for his prosecution. The petitioner was employed as Junior Auditor with the haryana Khadi Gram Udyog and Village Industries Board and as per Appendix C to the Haryana Khadi and village Industries Board (Service) Regulations, 1976, an employee can be dismissed from service, which may or may not be disqualification from future employment only by the Board. The sanction for prosecution in the present case was granted by the Chief Executive of the Board vide Annexure P-3. The state has claimed sanction order to be valid on the basis that the Chief Executive has been clothed with certain powers vide Annexure P-8, the same reads as follows :-

"Item No. 1 :- Regarding delegation of disciplinary powers to Chief Executive - Under regulation 31-A, Board may delegate, except the power to make regulations, its power to Chief Executive or Member Secretary. The relevant rule is as blow :-

"The Board may, by resolution direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act or the regulations made there under, except the power to make regulations may also be exercised by the Chief Executive or Member Secretary as the case may be of the Board."

In view of the above cited Rule it is proposed that the Chief-Executive of the Board may be delegated the powers to initiate the departmental enquiry against class III and class IV of the Board pending enquiry to suspend them, to appoint regular enquiry officer if the punishment to be inflicted upon the aforesaid employer is higher than censure the matter shall be placed before the Board.

In the light of the facts cited above, matter is placed before the Board for consideration and orders.

Regulation approved."

At a subsequent stage the police having asked for a clarification about sanction a resolution was put forth stating therein that the sanction accorded by the Chief Executive may be approved and vide proceedings A












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top