NARINDER SINGH Vs. C.B.I. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order granting prosecution sanction dated 27.12.2011 (P-3) passed by respondent No. 3. The petitioner along with other co-accused Dalbara Singh is prosecuted for an offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act'), vide F.I.R. No. RC-06A/2011 dated 04.04.2011, registered at P.S. C.B.I., ACB, Chandigarh. The petitioner was working as Patwari in Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib and on a complaint dated 04.04.2011 made by Gurmeet Singh and Avtar Singh wherein it was alleged that one Gurmeet Singh, resident of 124, VPO Dhanas, Chandigarh and his two brothers namely Harchan Singh and Nirmal Singh were recorded as joint owners of approximately 16 acres of land in the jamabandi of village Panjoli (Amargarh), Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib, they agreed to sell this land to Daljit Singh and his wife Mrs. Kuldeep Kaur. The sale deed of 09 acres of land was executed for Fatehgarh Sahib on 07.03.2011 by Gurmeet Singh, Harchand Singh and Nirmal Singh in favour of Mrs. Kuldeep Kaur. After execution of this sale deed, the petitioner, Patwari Halqa Pola, Tehgarh Sahib approached Gurmeet Singh through his friend Avtar Singh and demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 9,50,000/- at the residence of Avtar Singh, situated at H. No. 251, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh. This was for executing the sale deed which was not in accordance with law. The deal was struck at Rs. 9,00,000/- and the money was decided to be passed on 04.04.2011. At this stage, Gurmeet Singh and Avtar Singh informed C.B.I. as per their complaint (P-1). A trap was planned by the CBI to apprehend the accused red handed while accepting the bribe from the complainant and a team was constituted who apprehended the petitioner along with Dalbara Singh Sarpanch red handed accepting bribe. F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused (P-2).

(2.) The head of the branch of C.B.I. Chandigarh sought the prosecution sanction vide memo dated 11.11.2011 from respondent No. 3, which has been given by respondent No. 3. The petitioner had filed an application for his discharge and for returning the papers submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 02.06.2012 (P-4). An enquiry was held on the application given by the petitioner which was decided by SDM, Bassi Pathana on 06.07.2011 and it was held that no alleged charge has been made out against the petitioner. The enquiry report is dated 06.07.2011 (P-5). Despite this enquiry, the petitioner was prosecuted and another enquiry was held on the application of the petitioner by the SDM, Bassi Pathana and it was held that it did not seem that the petitioner had demanded an amount from the complainant and no charge was found against the petitioner. The enquiry report is dated 27.07.2011 (P-6). The evidence of respondent No. 3 was recorded who had admitted that he had not personally gone through the record of the patwari. It was further stated that the petitioner had not supplied any fard in the case regarding the disputed land. Respondent No. 3 had volunteered that the report of SDM being inconclusive and illogical was not accepted by him (P-7).

(3.) The petitioner was not in a position and neither he had the authority to get the sale deed executed as he was junior to the Registering authority i.e. Tehsildar. He could not have in any manner objected to the execution of the sale deed. In the statement made by Avtar Singh-complainant, he had stated that he came to know about the alleged occurrence only after it had happened. The story of the prosecution on the other hand is that Avtar Singh was a member of the pre-trap party and he was in full knowledge, becomes doubtful.