DAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned sanction order would reveal that the Sanctioning Authority has adverted to all the necessary facts. It is upon examination of such material facts which were in the nature of documents attached along with the challan form pertaining to the case FIR as also perusing the statements of witnesses that the Sanctioning Authority had certified as regards its satisfaction that the petitioner should be prosecuted for the offences concerned. The Sanctioning Authority has also certified that it is the authority competent to remove the petitioner from office. It would be useful to refer to the relevant extracts from the impugned order granting sanction and the same reads in the following terms:

(3.) AGAINST the present scenario of rampant corruption in all spheres of life, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution. In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & another, : 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Cril.) 720 : 2012(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 201 : (2012) 3 SCC 64., the Hon'ble Supreme Court while noticing that the requirement as regards seeking sanction in respect of public servants being in the nature of a protection against malicious prosecution has held that the same can not be permitted to become a shield to protect corrupt officials. It was held that such provisions in the nature of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C. must be construed narrowly. In the case of Subramanian Swamy (Supra), it had been observed in the following terms: