Om Raj vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

On the statement of Sardool Singh, F.I.R. No. 67 dated 9.9.1997 came to be registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala (Annexure P16). The material allegations found therein is as follows :

Sardool Singh (complainant) was promoted on 6.1.1994 as Assistant Revenue Clerk and is working in the office of Bhatinda Canal Division, but was not given his due seniority from February, 1992. Inspite of representation submitted by him in this regard, he was not given his due right. The complainant along with Sarabjeet Singh met Om Raj (petitioner herein), Senior Assistant of the office of Superintending Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana on 8.9.1997 and asked him about his (complainant) representation. The petitioner demanded Rs. 2,000/ as bribe that the will get the work done. The complainant and Sarabjeet Singh stated that the complainant was poor, but the petitioner did not agree. The petitioner asked the complainant to arrange for the money and to come on the next day i.e. 9.9.1997 with Rs. 2,000/, with the assurance that the work will be done.

The complainant did not want to give bribe and get his work done. Therefore, he produced Rs. 2,000/ in the shape of four currency notes of Rs. 500/ denomination before the D.S.P. Binder Singh of Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, and made the above statement.

After the recording of statement, the D.S.P. followed the requisite usual formalities with the instructions to the complainant to hand over the currency to the petitioner when the petitioner demands bribe. Sarabjeet Singh was nominated as the shadow witness with a direction to give a signal to the raiding party when the petitioner demands and accepts the bribe from Sardool Singh.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashing of the above said F.I.R. mainly alleging that Sardool Singh''s allegations are false, that he is not trustworthy, and that the representations given by him had been disposed of even on 15.5.1997 and 12.8.1997 and, therefore, subsequently no action remained to be taken on his representations. The petitioner has also alleged that when Sardool Singh forcibly started to put Rs. 2,000/ in the pocket of the petitioner, and found himself unable to do so, had put the money in the drawer of another employee in the absence of the petitioner, who had immediately rushed to the office of the P.A. to the Superintending Engineer to lodge a protest. The petitioner has also alleged that no money was recovered from him. The petitioner has also alleged that in these circumstances there is no prima facie material to connect him with the offence. The petitioner has also alleged that even the Superintending Engineer has sent a communication to the Chief Engineer (Annexure P12 dated 1.10.1997) requesting that sanction should not be granted for prosecuting the petitioner, by giving the reasons therefor.

Respondents 1 and 4 filed a reply stating that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 2,000/ from the complainant, that the matter was still under investigation, and that after the completion of the investigation, the case would be sent to the competent authority for sanction.

Respondents 2 and 3 filed a reply stating that the Deputy Collector, Bhatinda Canal Division has reported that the work and conduct of Sardool Singh was most unsatisfactory and that a report was submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, recommending that the petitioner should be reinstated. They have also urged that the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Irrigation had examined the case and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner.

The petitioner has, during the pendency of this petition, produced Annexure P23, the copy of the order declining sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and pursued the records on file.

Though, initially the petitioner had sought for quashing of the F.I.R. on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against him on the grounds as mentioned above, during the course of the proceedings, he has produced Annexure P23 from which it is clear that sanction to prosecute the petitioner on this F.I.R. has been declined under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no Court is entitled to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 etc., except with the previous sanction of the State Government where the person concerned is employed in connection with the affairs of the State and is not removable from his office except by or with the sanction of the State Government. Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. also provides accordingly. Therefore, once it is clear that sanction to prosecute the petitioner with reference to the F.I.R. in question has been declined, the Court itself is not entitled to take cognizance of the offence. So, it follows that the prosecution of the petitioner cannot end in a conviction. To allow such a prosecution to go on, would only be a futile exercise, apart from putting the parties to unnecessary inconvenience and expenses. The time of the parties as well as the Court would also be wasted.

Therefore, I am of the view that the F.I.R. in question and the consequential proceedings have to be quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The F.I.R. impugned in this petition as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.