Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1135 (PNJ)

Tirath Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-08-02

RITU BAHRI

body2014
ORDER : The petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala-respondent No.2 and letter dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib-respondent No.3, whereby sanction granted for prosecution has been withdrawn. 2. Smt. Paramjit Kaur, wife of Tirath Singh-petitioner inherited property from her father in village Rurki, District Fatehgarh Sahib. She made an application to Mohan Singh, Halqa Pawari, Rurki, for sanctioning mutation in her favour, who demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/-, from the petitioner, which was later on reduced to Rs. 4000/-. The petitioner contacted one Avtar Singh son of Harnek Singh and they made an attempt to get the said Patwari arrested. The petitioner went to the office of Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, after collecting Rs.4000/- with Avtar Singh and narrated the entire story. Thereafter, FIR No.9 dated 01.02.2006, under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala (Annexure P-1). The raiding party conducted a raid in the office of Halqa Patwari, Rurki, from where Mohan Singh was caught red handed and bribe of Rs. 4000/- was recovered from his possession. After investigation, the Vigilance department recorded the statements of the witnesses and sought sanction for prosecution against aforesaid Mohan Singh from the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib-respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.16758 of 2006 before this Court, for giving direction to respondent No.3 to give final sanction to prosecute Mohan Singh, Halqa Patwari. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2006 by giving a direction to respondent No.3 to take a final decision in the matter of grant of final sanction. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.3 declined to grant sanction of prosecution against Mohan Singh, Patwari. This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing CWP No.6281 of 2007. After notice, a detailed reply was filed by the Vigilance Bureau, stating that a parallel enquiry had been conducted by the DSP, Nabha. Respondent No.3, without examining the report of the Vigilance Bureau, had declined to grant sanction to prosecution Mohan Singh. Several reminders were sent by the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, stating that no parallel could be conducted and sanction to prosecute Mohan Singh sought. Respondent No.3, without examining the report of the Vigilance Bureau, had declined to grant sanction to prosecution Mohan Singh. Several reminders were sent by the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, stating that no parallel could be conducted and sanction to prosecute Mohan Singh sought. During the pendency of the said petition, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3) granting sanction to prosecute. Consequently, the said petition became infructuous and was disposed of on 08.10.2007. 3. Mohan Singh, Patwari, filed CRM No. M-46187 of 2007 for quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as the order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3). During the pendency of said petition, respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure P-4) directed respondent No.3 to withdraw his order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, respondent No.3, vide order dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure P-5), withdrew his order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3) and restored his earlier order dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner has challenged both the orders dated 03.03.2008 and 31.03.2008 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). 4. In the written statement, filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 4, the factual position is admitted, as stated in the petition. It has been stated that the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, vide letter dated 10.05.2010, had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, to file an untraced report in the case. Thereafter, the matter was referred back to the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, for further necessary action and the matter is still pending there. Once, sanction to prosecute has been declined, there was no provision for reviewing the said order. 5. In the reply, filed by respondent No.2 by way of an affidavit of Ajeet Singh Pannu, IAS, Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, reference has been made to memo/instructions (Annexure R-1), wherein it is clarified that once the Government passes the order under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under Section 197 Cr.P.C., declining the sanction to prosecute concerned official, then review of such order on the basis of same material, would not be appropriate or permissible. In view of these instructions, respondent No.2, vide order dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), directed respondent No.3 to withdraw his sanction order dated 03.09.2007. 6. Reply of respondent No.3 is similar to the other respondents. 7. In view of these instructions, respondent No.2, vide order dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure P-4), directed respondent No.3 to withdraw his sanction order dated 03.09.2007. 6. Reply of respondent No.3 is similar to the other respondents. 7. Mohan Singh respondent No.5 filed a detailed reply, stating that earlier he was serving in the Indian Army and thereafter, he joined as Patwari in the revenue department. He has 15 years unblemished service to his career. The order refusing sanction to prosecute cannot be reviewed. Reference has been made to the judgments passed by this Court in Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti v. State of Punjab, 2006 (2) RCR 430 (DB) (P&H), Dr. Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2001 (2) RCR 58 and Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State, 2001 (3) RCR 306. 8. The Investigating Officer Jaspal Singh, S.P. Vigilance, who registered FIR against the petitioner, had been convicted for seven years in a case of custodial death. Ultimately, he was pardoned vide order dated 04.10.2005 passed by the Governor of Punjab (Annexure R-5/1). After reinstatement, he misused his official position and has been booked in FIR No.184 dated 23.08.2012, under Sections 167, 211, 355, 506, IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur (Annexure R-5/2). A petition seeking CBI enquiry against Jaspal Singh has been filed by respondent No. 5. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti- s case (2006 (2) RCR 430 (P & H) (supra), has examined the provisions of Section 197, Cr.P.C. and held that an order refusing to sanction prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could not be reviewed, as the authority had no power to do so. In para 9 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed as under:- ' 9. As regard point No. 2, that the Government having once exercised its power under Section 197 of the Code, had exhausted its power and as such, it could not exercise the same for the second time, we are inclined to hold that there is merit in this contention. The power given to the State Government under Section 197, having been exercised by it while passing the first order, Annexure P-2, stood exhausted and the same could not be exercised second time while passing the impugned order, Annexure P-3. The power given to the State Government under Section 197, having been exercised by it while passing the first order, Annexure P-2, stood exhausted and the same could not be exercised second time while passing the impugned order, Annexure P-3. For this decision of ours, we find support not only from the decision in Kanta Devi- s case (supra), but also from the quotation reproduced above in the case of M/s. Western India Watch Co.- s case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court did not consider the question of exhausting the power. In that case, it came to the conclusion that since the Government had refused to exercise its power, therefore, it was not exhausted. The necessary implication that if the power had been exercised, then the same could not be exercised twice over. Furthermore, we find support from the decision of the Supreme Court in D. N. Ganguly- s case (supra), where the subsequent order was held to be bad although not on the reasoning that the power had been exhausted while passing the earlier order. Hence, we hold that the Government exhausted its power under Section 197 of the Code while passing the earlier order, Annexure P-2 and it could not exercise that power twice over while passing the impugned order, Annexure P-3. On this ground also, the impugned order, Annexure P-3, is liable to be quashed as being null and void.' 10. In the aforesaid judgment, reference has been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon- ble Supreme Court in Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 153 : (1994 Cri LJ 1221 (SC)), wherein it has been observed as under:- ' 33. What follows from the aforesaid discussion is that appropriate authority who on consideration of all the material had refused to accord sanction to prosecute a public servant, has no power on re-consideration to review such an order and thereby according sanction to prosecute on the same material. It will be a totally different situation, if any additional/fresh/new material is brought before the competent authority; that admittedly is not the situation in all the three cases nor is the case of any one of the respondents set out in their replies. Similarly, the long gap after completion of investigation and the grant of sanction is an additional ground to grant relief to the petitioners in all these three cases.' 11. Similarly, the long gap after completion of investigation and the grant of sanction is an additional ground to grant relief to the petitioners in all these three cases.' 11. In the light of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon- ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned orders. 12. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.