KAMALJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 33 dated 20.5.2002, under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), registered with Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, along with order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby learned trial Court has declined to accept the untraced report, despite the fact that sanction to prosecute the petitioner has been declined twice. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a Government doctor and is a public servant, Governor of Punjab is her appointing authority. She can be removed from her office save by and with the sanction of the Government. Petitioner has been accused in a offence alleged to have been committed by her while acting or purporting to act in discharge of her official duties. Ajaib Singh Lakha resident of village and Post Office Bhangala Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, lodged a complaint against the petitioner while she was posted as Senior Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Mukerian, that petitioner has amassed the wealth more than her known sources of income. She has constructed kothi No. 26/W.T. Hajipur Road Dasuya, has purchased agricultural land in District Hoshiarpur and has acquired movable and immovable property by illegal means from her unknown sources of income. On that basis FIR No. 33 dated 20.5.2002 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar, was registered against the petitioner. The check period from 1.1.1991 to 31.10.1999 of income of the suspect petitioner was taken into consideration. Initially, the authorities came to a conclusion that the income of the petitioner from her known sources is Rs. 30,79,142.05 whereas her expenditure is Rs. 36,45,198.05. In this way, it was alleged that petitioner has incurred more expenditure to the extent of Rs. 5,66,056/- than her known sources of income which is about 18.35% more than her income. It was alleged that the petitioner has acquired properties by misusing her official position, disproportionate to her known sources of income. Upon completion of the investigation, Vigilance Department sought sanction from the competent authority so as to enable it to prosecute the petitioner. By an order dated 12.12.2006, Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare, declined the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Thereafter the matter was again investigated and sanction was again sought, which too was again declined on 24.5.2007. During the further investigation it has come out that the total income of the petitioner from her known sources was Rs. 33,16,585.05 whereas her expenditures were Rs. 36,53,552.06. In this manner, the excess income of the petitioner was Rs. 3,36,966/-. As per Government instructions, 10% concession on excess expenditure incurred during the check period is permitted. In this way, the petitioner's income and expenditures are almost equal.

(2.) After completion of the investigation the department submitted the cancellation report, which has not been accepted by the Special Judge (Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur). The Special Judge passed the order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-3), which is under challenge. The relevant part of the order reads as under :-

(3.) Upon notice, the State filed reply by way of affidavit and submitted that the State had submitted untraced report as the income from the known sources of the petitioner is slightly less than the total expenditure incurred by her. After giving 10% concession, as per Government instructions, from the total expenditure incurred, the expenditures of the petitioner were within the known sources of her income.