Rajinder Kumar vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2153

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Rajinder Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-39273 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Lamba, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Luvinder Sofat, DAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173 - The petitioner challenged orders related to the grant of sanction for prosecution after allegations of soliciting bribes for approving a building plan. The Director set aside a prior resolution of non-sanction by the Municipal Council. The court held that the question of sanction validity must be determined during the trial, not preemptively by the High Court. (Paras 8-24)

(B) The competence of authorities to grant sanction - The Director of Local Government has the authority to annul decisions of the Municipal Council based on delegated powers under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The court highlighted the principle that administrative action taken by the sanctioning authority could not be challenged prior to trial proceedings (Para 26).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Clerk at Municipal Council, was caught red-handed accepting a bribe for approval of a building plan. The FIR was lodged, but initial arguments questioned the necessity of a sanction following the petitioner’s retirement.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in halting the proceedings: issues regarding the validity of the sanction could be raised during the trial where evidence is presented.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Director had the authority to set aside the Municipal Council's resolution declining sanction and if any procedural irregularities existed that could halt the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that challenges regarding sanction validity are to be addressed within the trial context, emphasizing that the presence of a sanction, even if flawed, does not invalidate proceedings unless it results in a failure of justice.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the corruption case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding validity of prosecution sanction (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and validity of sanction (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. principle regarding the validity of sanction challenged during trial (Para 25)
5. final dismissal of the petition (Para 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.

The petitioner, against whom final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., arising out of FIR No. 11 dated 2.8.2017, under sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, was presented and subsequently even charges have been framed by the trial Court during pendency of instant petition, assails the following orders:

(i) Order dated 28.4.2020 (Annexure P-28) passed by the office of Directorate, Local Government Department vide which a decision taken by the Director, Local Government Department pertaining to setting aside of Resolution No. 373 of Municipal Council, Mansa and further directing grant of sanction, had been conveyed to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mansa.

(ii) Order No. 5 dated 11.5.2020 (Annexure P-32) vide which the Administrator accorded approval for granting sanction to prosecute petitioner;

(iii) Order No. 8 dated 9.7.2020 (Annexure P-36), vide which the Administrator, pursuant to an objection raised by DSP as regards form of sanction order, directed Executive Officer to take necessary action.

2. The petitioner had been working as a Clerk in Municipal Council, Mansa. Upon a complaint made by Pawandeep Singh, FIR No. 11 dated 2.8.2017, under sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda (Annexure P-4) was lodged against the petitioner wherein the complainant alleged that he had submitted a building plan for construction of a house and in respect of which the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.40,000/- as illegal gratification for getting the same approved. A trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe.

3. Upon conclusion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Special Court by the Vigilance Bureau on 30.7.2018. However, since the same was not accompanied by any sanction order in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, an application dated 6.9.2018 (Annexure P-9) was moved on behalf of the petitioner/accused Rajinder Kumar before the Special Court praying therein that cognizance be not taken in the absence of sanction order and that the petitioner/accused be discharged.

4. The State filed its reply on 20.2.2019 (Annexure P-10) wherein a stand was taken that since the FIR was lodged when the accused/petitioner already had retired w.e.f. 31.1.2018 i.e. before amendment of Section 19 of the Act mandating requirement of sanction even for a retired employee, there was no requirement of obtaining a sanction for prosecuting the accused. It has further been stated therein that the amended provisions can be said to be operative with effect from the date of amendment i.e. 26.7.2018 whereas the instant FIR had been registered on 2.8.2017. When the said application was taken up for consideration by the learned Special Court, it was represented on behalf of the State that the matter in question regarding lack of sanction had been brought to the notice of department concerned. The Special Court accordingly adjourned the matter vide order dated 31.8.2019 (Annexure P-11) for two months to enable the prosecuting agency to seek sanction, in case it desired to do so. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab wrote a letter dated 6.11.2019 (Annexure P-12) to the Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Mansa requesting for sanction to prosecute the accused.

5. The matter pertaining to grant of sanction was considered by the Municipal Council during the meetin