Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
C.R.M-M No.28864 of 2013 (O&M)
Rajpal Singh v. State of Punjab
{Decided on 11/01/2019}
Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Corruption – Patwari is a Government/Public servant and cannot be prosecuted under Corruption Act without mandatory sanction for prosecution
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.19 – Sanction for Prosecution – Quashing – Patwari is a Government/Public servant and cannot be prosecuted under Corruption Act without mandatory sanction for prosecution – In absence of such sanction FIR and subsequent proceeding liable to be quashed – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482. (Para 6)
Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.17 dated 09.09.2011, registered under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘PC Act’) registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Amritsar whereby the trial Court directed framing of charges against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, despite there being no mandatory sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act as well as consequential charge sheet framed by learned trial Court on 06.08.2013.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that on two occasions sanction has been refused but the trial Court wrongly went ahead with the trial holding that the petitioner was not a Govt. servant. He has relied upon CRM-M-29605 of 2013 titled as Kanwaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 25.05.2017.
3. On the other hand learned Senior DAG has relied upon Amarjit Singh (Patwari) Vs. State of Punjab, [2012(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1789] : 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 79. In both the cases the persons were employed in the Revenue Department.
4. In Amarjit Singh (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench took the view since Patwari was removable by the District Collector he would not be entitled to the protection of Section 19 of the PC Act.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that this is a case which would be covered by Section 19 (1) (c) and not by Section 19 (1) (b) because if the prosecution is under the PC Act it can only be of public servant and a person who is not a public servant cannot be prosecuted under the PC Act.
6. In my considered opinion the judgment of Kanwaljit Singh (supra) would be more applicable. As mentioned above on two occasions the prosecution sought sanction but it was declined. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the above said FIR alongwith other consequential proceedings qua petitioner is quashed.
7. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Criminal Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
