KRISHAN PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above referred petitions are being disposed of by this common order as by way of Crl. Misc. No. M-35244 of 2011, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 246 dated 29.11.2007, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for bevity, 'the Act') and subsequent proceedings taken therein, whereas in Civil Writ Petition No. 3772 of 20012, the order dated 09.02.2012 granting sanction for prosecution in the aforesaid FIR has been challenged.

(2.) The question raised in the petition is regarding the extent of the powers vested in the Government in reviewing its order refusing sanction to prosecution the petitioner under the Act. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the FIR. The petitioner was a Junior Engineer posted in the office of District Controller, Food and Supplies Department , Fatehgarh Sahib. Aforesaid FIR was registered against him. After completion of the investigation, the matter was put up before the competent authority i.e. District Controller, Food and Civil Supplies for according sanction. The sanction was refused vide order dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P-1 in CWP No. 3772 of 2012). The order was never challenged before any authority and became final.

(3.) Despite the refusal to accord sanction, the investigating officer failed to file the police report nor filed the cancellation report and the proceedings came to a stand-still. The petitioner was to retire in March 2012. He filed a quashing petition bearing Crl. Misc. No.M-4792 of 2011. On 14.02.2011 the petition was disposed of as an undertaking was given by the investigating officer that they would be filing the challan before the trial Court. The petitioners case is that the investigating agency failed to file the challan or the cancellation report and the trial Court adjourned the proceedings sine die saying that the petition would be taken up as and when the challan is filed. The petitioner again moved a petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-35244 of 2011 wherein respondents filed their reply that they had again applied for sanction. The case of the petitioner is that there could be no review of earlier order after four years. It was pleaded that the competent authority could not accord sanction and has challenged the order dated 09.02.2012 whereby sanction had been accorded on reconsideration of the same material.