Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Gurdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 1751 of 2018
Decided On : 23-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the corruption case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the necessity of prosecution sanction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial analysis regarding sanctions and legal terms. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. conclusion confirming the validity of the orders. (Para 36) |
| 5. final order of dismissal. (Para 37) |
Judgment
Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
The petitioners assail order dated 5.3.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Bathinda vide which the learned Court, while accepting an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant, ordered for summoning of the petitioners Gurdev Singh Bhalla (Inspector, Punjab Police), Janak Singh (DSP, Punjab Police), Head Constable Harjinder Singh and Head Constable Rajwant Singh so as to face trial as additional accused in a case arising out of FIR No. 11 dated 11.9.2013 registered under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 166, 385 IPC at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda.
2. A few facts relevant to notice are that one FIR i.e. FIR No.91 dated 18.12.2012 was registered at Police Station Phul, Bathinda under Sections 380, 406, 409, 420, 457 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act wherein Dev Raj Miglani (father of the present complainant) was implicated. Subsequently, Dev Raj Miglani’s son (present complainant) and daughter levelled allegations against police officials to the effect that they were demanding illegal gratification to spare their father, namely, Dev Raj Miglani from torture and to release him. Consequently, based on such allegations, the instant FIR No. 11 dated 11.9.2013 came to be registered. After completion of investigation, only one police official namely Head Constable Kikkar Singh was nominated as accused and is facing trial. Statement of the complainant namely Puneet Miglani was recorded before the trial Court as PW-1 and in which he specifically named the petitioners to be also involved in the matter. He specifically deposed that on 3.9.2013, the complainant alongwith his sister went to the office of DSP Janak Singh at Bathinda and wherein police officials/petitioners were present and whereupon father of the complainant namely Dev Raj Miglani was produced and a sum of Rs. 24 lacs was demanded as bribe to spare accused Dev Raj Miglani from torture and to release him.
3. The relevant facts, as the case proceeded further, are briefly stated herein under chronologically:-
| Date | Event |
| 11.9.2013 | FIR No. 11 dated 11.9.2013 registered under Sections 166, 385 IPC and Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda. |
| 16.1.2014 | Challan presented against Kikkar Singh (Annexure P-6) |
| 10.4.2014 | Charge framed against HC Kikkar Singh |
| 26.5.2014 | Statement of Puneet was recorded (PW-1) |
| 29.9.2014 | First application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by Puneet Miglani. |
| 8.9.2016 | Aforesaid application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by complainant Puneet Miglani dismissed |
| 6.10.2016 | Puneet filed CRR-3689-2016 before Hon’ble High Court challenging aforesaid order dated 8.9.2016 |
| 9.2.2017 | Devraj was examined as PW-13 before Trial Court |
| 16.2.2017 | Second Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by Dev Raj Miglani (Annexure P-13). |
| 4.3.2017 | Aforesaid second Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by Dev Raj Miglani was also dismissed. |
| 23.1.2018 | CRR-3689-2016 was allowed by Hon’ble High Court and matter remanded back to trial Court for passing fresh order (Annexure P-1) |
| 5.3.2018 | Upon matter being remanded, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was considered afresh and was allowed by learned trial Court and pe |
The requirement of prior sanction for prosecution under Sec.19 PC Act applies at the time of taking cognizance of the offence, and the intent behind the provision is to protect public servants from m....
Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Point of Law : Inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
The amendment to Sec. 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act extends the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution to include public servants who were in service at the time of the alleged ....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for offences in discharge of o....
Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Ju....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
