DILAWAR SINGH Vs. PARVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3-7-2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which Criminal Revision Petition No. 553 of 2002 filed by the respondent Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh was allowed and the appellant was summoned for facing prosecution under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant filed an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for recall of the order dated 3-7-2002 on the ground that he was not served with the notice of the revision and the same was allowed ex parte against him, but the application was dismissed by the order dated 4-3-2003 with the observation that there was no provision for review under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant has laid challenge to the aforesaid order as well.

(2.) It is necessary to mention the basic facts giving rise to the present appeals. On the complaint made by the wife, a case was registered against Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh under Section 406/498-A, IPC. On 27-1-2000 Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh gave a complaint to the SSP Barnala alleging that on 23-1-2000, Jasbir Singh, ASI and a Home Guard came to his house on a scooter and forcibly took him to the Police Station Barnala. He was beaten and tortured and was subjected to third degree methods. Some of his relatives, namely, Jarnail Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sadhu Singh Grewal and Sukhdev Singh Virk came to the police station and requested the police personnel not to beat or torture him. It was further alleged in the complaint that Jasbir Singh, ASI, told them that they should talk to Dilawar Singh, S.H.O., who was sitting there on a chair. Dilawar Singh then demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for releasing Parvinder Singh. His relations then brought the amount, out of which Rs. 15,000/- was offered to Dilawar Singh but he said that the money may be handed over to ASI Jasbir Singh. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- was then given to ASI Jasbir Singh, who kept the same in the pocket of his coat. Parvinder Singh was medically examined on 28-1-2000 and a case was registered under Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against ASI Jasbir Singh. A closure report was submitted against Dilawar Singh S.H.O. as in the opinion of the investigating officer he had not committed any offence. It may be mentioned here that for prosecution of ASI Jasbir Singh, necessary sanction had been obtained from the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act. After the statement of the complainant Parvinder Singh had been recorded, he moved an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning Dilawar Singh, S.H.O. as a co-accused in the case. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application by the order dated 7-1-2002. Parvinder Singh filed a revision petition against the aforesaid order which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 3-7-2002 and a direction has been issued to summon Dilawar Singh and try him in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that no sanction had been granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for prosecution of the appellant under Section 13(2) of the said Act and in absence of sanction, the appellant could not be summoned to face the trial. Learned counsel for the respondent-Parvinder Singh has submitted that the language used in the opening part of the sub-section (1) of Section 19 is that "No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 ........." and in the present case cognizance of the offence had already been taken by the Special Judge as against ASI Jasbir Singh and in these circumstances, no fresh sanction was required as against the appellant Dilawar Singh. Learned counsel has further submitted that a Court takes cognizance of an offence and not that of an offender and once cognizance has been validly taken as against ASI Jasbir Singh, for whose prosecution sanction had been granted, there is no impediment in proceeding against the appellant-Dilawar Singh as well. In support of the submission that cognizance is taken of an offence and not that of an offender, reliance is placed on certain observations made in Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167, wherein it was held that once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant-respondent had moved an application for summoning the appellant under Section 319, Cr.P.C., which gives wide power to the Court to summon an accused and to proceed against him if it appears from the evidence that any person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused.