CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Mr. RVS Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

...

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

1. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of order dated 23.11.2011 as passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa in case arising out of FIR No.20, dated 08.09.2006, registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda as well as the order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, thereby upholding the order dated 23.11.2011 and dismissing the revision petition as filed by the present petitioner.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the present petitioner had approached the office of Vigilance Bureau Unit Mansa on 08.09.2006 and recorded his statement that an altercation had taken place between his mother Smt. Taro Bai and Preeto Bai and the latter had inflicted injuries on the person of his mother. Preeto Bai too had sustained some injuries. Though, Paramjit Kaur daughter of Preeto Bai, who was pregnant was not present on the spot of occurrence at the relevant time but by alleging that she too had sustained injuries in her abdomen by giving kick blows, she too got herself admitted in Civil Hospital, Sardulgarh. The petitioner had also gone to the same hospital for getting her mother treated but was told by Dr. R.P. Singal, who was present there that he would get his mother admitted only on getting bribe of Rs.2000/-. By further submitting that he had made false promise to Dr. R.P. Singal to pay money to got his mother admitted in the hospital, he prayed for taking action against Dr. R.P. Singal.

3. On the basis of his statement, a case bearing FIR No.20 dated 08.09.2006 was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act'). Investigation proceedings were initiated. The above mentioned Dr. R.P. Singal faced trial and was acquitted vide judgment dated 01.04.2009 in view of the fact that the petitioner, while appearing as a witness before the learned trial Court had resiled from his testimony. An information was then sent to the Chief Director, Head Office, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab for taking action against the petitioner for giving false information and after receiving orders from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Calendra under Section 182 of I.P.C. was presented against the present petitioner to face trial on 03.11.2019. The petitioner appeared before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate in response to the summons. Vide order dated 23.11.2011, charge under Section 182 IPC was framed against him. Feeling aggrieved from the above mentioned order dated 23.11.2011, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2013. Hence, the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 23.11.2011 and 05.04.2013 respectively passed by the Court of learned Magistrate and learned revisional Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside as while passing the same, the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the Calendra in this case had been prepared and presented before the Court by Sh. Narenderpal Singh, posted as DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Mansa, who had no locus standi to file the same in view of the mandatory requirement of the prov