JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Crl. Revision No. 790 of 2006 and Crl. Misc. Nos. 47115-M of 2003, 5507-M of 2005, 16036-M of 2006 and 23571-M of 2006. These petitions are arising from the orders passed by the Special Judge for taking cognizance of the offence while not agreeing with the untraced report/cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency. These orders are arising in two situations : firstly, where the investigating agency after considering the material collected during the investigation, came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material/evidence to proceed against the accused. So, the investigating agency applied for sanction for prosecution of the accused from the competent authority. However, the same was not granted and accordingly the untraced report was submitted; and secondly where during the investigation, the allegations in the FIR were found to be false, therefore, the investigating agency without applying for the requisite sanction from the competent authority submitted the cancellation report. Crl. Revision No. 790 of 2006, Crl. Misc. Nos. 47115-M of 2003, 5507-M of 2005 and 16036-M of 2006 are covered in the situation where the Special Judge, while not agreeing with the untraced report submitted by the investigating agency, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the accused to face trial. Crl. Misc. No. 23571-M of 2006 is covered in the situation where the Special Judge, while not agreeing with the cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the accused to face trial.

(2.) IN these petitions, a common question of law is involved, i.e., whether the Special Judge can take cognizance of the offence (pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act) under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') even without there being a valid sanction granted by the competent authority while considering and not agreeing with the untraced or cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency.

(3.) IN this petition, on a complaint made by one Veer Singh, the police registered a case under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') against petitioner Dr. Jaswant Singh on the allegation that he had taken the bribe of Rs. 7,000/- for giving a wrong medico-legal report. During the investigation, the police found sufficient material/evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, the investigating agency decided to submit the challan against him. In view of the said decision, the investigating agency applied for sanction for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 19 of the PC Act, but the appropriate authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. Then the investigating agency prepared the untraced report and submitted it to the Special Court. The Special Judge vide order dated 10.2.2006 while disagreeing with the untraced report, came to the conclusion that prima facie there is sufficient material/evidence against the accused for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act and has taken cognizance against the accused under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code irrespective of the fact there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the petitioner by the competent authority.