TARSEM CHAND JINDAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) in a case bearing FIR No.100 dated 25.11.1998 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Patiala; order dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure P-7 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to the FIR in question were liable to be quashed as there was no valid sanction granted by the competent authority for prosecution of the petitioner. The competent authority had refused the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner on three occasions. Thereafter, the prosecution had submitted untraced report. Learned Special Judge, vide order dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-5), directed the prosecution to proceed further with the matter and submit a fresh report.

(3.) Thereafter, the competent authority granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, although there was no fresh material available on record. Petitioner had been falsely involved in the case by the complainant as he had made a report against the complainant qua theft of electricity on 14.11.1998. In pursuance to the said report, complainant had deposited Rs. 4,021/- towards penalty on 18.11.1998. Thereafter, petitioner was falsely involved in this case on 25.11.998. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on State of H.P. vs. Nishant Sareen, 2011 AIR(SC) 404, wherein, it was held as under:-