Mahesh Chander vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 17 dated 18.7.2013 under Sections 420 ,120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC'' for short) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''the Act'' for shot) (Annexure P5) registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Phase I Punjab at Mohali and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Learned for the petitioner has submitted that the competent authority had declined to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner vide order Annexure P10 dated 27.5.2010. At that time, petitioner was in service. Thereafter, petitioner retired from service and again his sanction for prosecution was sought and same was declined by competent authority vide order Annexure P12 dated 27.12.2010. Since the competent authority had declined to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, prosecution could not be launched against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa, , wherein it was held as under:-

We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Tripathy and the decision relied on is clearly distinguishable. Sanction is a devise provided by law to safeguard public servants from vexatious and frivolous prosecution. It is to give them freedom and liberty to perform their duty without fear or favour and not succumb to the pressure of unscrupulous elements. It is a weapon at the hands of the sanctioning authority to protect the innocent public servants from uncalled for prosecution but not intended to shield the guilty. Here in the present case while the appellant was in service sanction sought for his prosecution was declined by the State government. Vigilance Department did not challenge the same and allowed the appellant to retire from service. After the retirement, Vigilance Department requested the State Government to reconsider its decision, which was not only refused but the State Government while doing so clearly observed that no prima facie case of disproportionate assets against the appellant is made out. Notwithstanding that Vigilance Department chose to file charge-sheet after the retirement of the appellant and on that Special Judge had taken cognizance and issued process. We are of the opinion that in a case in which sanction sought is refused by the competent authority, while the public servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of Public Servant. Any other view will render the protection illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is refused by the competent authority after the retirement of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all necessary and any exercise in this regard would be action in futility.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that now the petitioner has retired from service. No sanction for his prosecution was necessary to launch prosecution against him.

There is no dispute qua the factual position in this case. Admittedly, petitioner was working as Senior Assistant. A case was registered with regard to tampering of approved samples of rolled cotton bandage, gauze cloth and bandage cloth in the Office of Director Research and Medical Education, Punjab. FIR No. 17 dated 18.7.2003 was registered under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Phase I, Punjab at Mohali in this regard. Sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was sought from the competent authority. A perusal of order Annexure P10 dated 27.5.2010 reveals that the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was declined by the competent authority. It was found that the petitioner had never tampered with the samples at any stage. Thereafter, petitioner retired from service on superannuation with effect from 30.04.2006. Prosecution again sought sanction for prosecution of the petitioner from the competent authority. Vide order Annexure P10 dated 27.12.2010, it was held that there was no justification to review the order Annexure P10 dated 27.12.2010. Thus, in the present case, the competent authority had taken a conscious decision and sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was declined. In these circumstances, in the absence of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, the trial Court can not take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 17 dated 18.7.2003 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Phase I Punjab at Mohali and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed. Consequently. Petitioner stands discharged in the FIR No. 17 dated 18.7.2003 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Phase I Punjab at Mohali.