Narinder Singh vs C.B.I. and Others

Ritu Bahri, J.—This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order granting prosecution sanction dated 27.12.2011 (P-3) passed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner along with other co-accused Dalbara Singh is prosecuted for an offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ''the Act''), vide F.I.R. No. RC-06A/2011 dated 04.04.2011, registered at P.S. C.B.I., ACB, Chandigarh. The petitioner was working as Patwari in Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib and on a complaint dated 04.04.2011 made by Gurmeet Singh and Avtar Singh wherein it was alleged that one Gurmeet Singh, resident of 124, VPO Dhanas, Chandigarh and his two brothers namely Harchan Singh and Nirmal Singh were recorded as joint owners of approximately 16 acres of land in the jamabandi of village Panjoli (Amargarh), Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, they agreed to sell this land to Daljit Singh and his wife Mrs. Kuldeep Kaur. The sale deed of 09 acres of land was executed for Fatehgarh Sahib on 07.03.2011 by Gurmeet Singh, Harchand Singh and Nirmal Singh in favour of Mrs. Kuldeep Kaur. After execution of this sale deed, the petitioner, Patwari Halqa Pola, Tehgarh Sahib approached Gurmeet Singh through his friend Avtar Singh and demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 9,50,000/- at the residence of Avtar Singh, situated at H. No. 251, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh. This was for executing the sale deed which was not in accordance with law. The deal was struck at Rs. 9,00,000/- and the money was decided to be passed on 04.04.2011. At this stage, Gurmeet Singh and Avtar Singh informed C.B.I. as per their complaint (P-1). A trap was planned by the CBI to apprehend the accused red handed while accepting the bribe from the complainant and a team was constituted who apprehended the petitioner along with Dalbara Singh Sarpanch red handed accepting bribe. F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused (P-2).

The head of the branch of C.B.I. Chandigarh sought the prosecution sanction vide memo dated 11.11.2011 from respondent No. 3, which has been given by respondent No. 3. The petitioner had filed an application for his discharge and for returning the papers submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 02.06.2012 (P-4). An enquiry was held on the application given by the petitioner which was decided by SDM, Bassi Pathana on 06.07.2011 and it was held that no alleged charge has been made out against the petitioner. The enquiry report is dated 06.07.2011 (P-5). Despite this enquiry, the petitioner was prosecuted and another enquiry was held on the application of the petitioner by the SDM, Bassi Pathana and it was held that it did not seem that the petitioner had demanded an amount from the complainant and no charge was found against the petitioner. The enquiry report is dated 27.07.2011 (P-6). The evidence of respondent No. 3 was recorded who had admitted that he had not personally gone through the record of the patwari. It was further stated that the petitioner had not supplied any fard in the case regarding the disputed land. Respondent No. 3 had volunteered that the report of SDM being inconclusive and illogical was not accepted by him (P-7).

The petitioner was not in a position and neither he had the authority to get the sale deed executed as he was junior to the Registering authority i.e. Tehsildar. He could not have in any manner objected to the execution of the sale deed. In the statement made by Avtar Singh-complainant, he had stated that he came to know about the alleged occurrence only after it had happened. The story of the prosecution on the other hand is that Avtar Singh was a member of the pre-trap party and he was in full knowledge, becomes doubtful.

On notice, a written statement has been filed by respondent No. 1, who had admitted the fact with regard to registration of F.I.R. after the trap was set on the complaint dated 04.04.2011 made by Gurmeet Singh and Avtar Singh. The petitioner was caught red handed with co-accused Dalbara Singh while demanding Rs. 9.40 lacs from the complainant. He accepted bribe from complainant through Avtar Singh on 04.04.2011 at Sector 43, Chandigarh. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 7/13(2)/13(I)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act. F.I.R. was registered against Narinder Singh @ Narinder Singh Sandhu, Halka Patwari, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) along with co-accused Dalbara Singh The petitioner filed CRM-M-37528 of 2011 for quashing of the above said F.I.R. which was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.08.2012. The petitioner cannot get any benefit from two enquiries report (P-5 and P-6) as they are at best departmental enquiries. The application for discharge was also dismissed on 02.06.2012 and it has attained finality.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on instructions has informed the Court that in the trial Court after framing of charges, out of 37 witnesses, 26 have been examined and the trial is at the final stage of concluding the case and the next dated is 23.02.2014. In view of the fact that the application of the petitioner for discharge has been dismissed and there are prima facie evidence found against the petitioner while framing the charges on 03.02.2012, no case is made out for quashing prosecution sanction dated 27.12.2011 (P-3) passed by respondent No. 3.

In the present case, a trap was planned by the CBI to apprehend the accused i.e. the petitioner along with Dalbara Singh, Sarpanch, who had demanded Rs. 9,00,000/- from Gurmeet Singh and Avtar Singh for the execution of the sale deed. They were caught red handed while accepting bribe and thereafter F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused (Annexure P-2). Sanction to prosecute the petitioner was sought vide memo dated 11.11.2011. The same was granted vide order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-3). In two departmental enquiries i.e. dated 6.7.2011 and 27.7.2011 (Annexure P-5 and P-6 respectively), no charge was found against the petitioner. F.I.R. was not registered on the basis of any departmental enquiry. It was a trap laid by the CBI in which the petitioner was caught red handed, Therefore, the departmental enquiries (Annexures P-5 and P-6) cannot be made basis for quashing of the sanction order 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-3).

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in a case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, had examined a case whereby a corruption case was registered against a public servant and it was held that exoneration of accused in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result in quashing of the criminal prosecution. It was further held that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in departmental proceeding and the finding is set aside by superior authority. The very foundation goes and the prosecution can be quashed, in paragraph 26, it has been held as under:-

"26. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result into the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further they are not in the same hierarchy."

Hence, the petitioner cannot be extended any benefit of these enquiries (Annexures P-5 and P-6) for quashing of criminal proceedings. Moreover, at the time of grant of sanction, the competent authority is to be satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient to prosecute the public servant. While considering the case of the petitioner, the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Gautam Vs. Surjit Singh and another, can be relevant, which reads as under:

"45. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."

Since the departmental enquiries were not the basis for the registration of the F.I.R. and further for granting sanction, no ground is made out to quash the order granting prosecution sanction dated 27.12.2011 (P-3) passed by respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.