KARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner is working as a clerk in the municipal Council, Dina Nagar. An F.I.R. No. 48 of 1986 under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and another accused at Police Station, Dina Nagar, The F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a statement of one Shri Sucha Singh who was running a meat shop at G.T. Road, Maharani Gate, Dina Nagar. According to him the petitioner and one Shambhu Nath Singla, the executive officer, had demanded bribe of Rs. 2000/- for giving him a licence for running the meant shop. Rs. 1500/- were to be paid to Mr. Singla while Rs. 500/- to be paid to the petitioner, Both these accused were summoned by the learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur, in corruption case No. 2 of 1987, which was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 3.6.1988. The relevant part of the judgment passed the learned trial Court reads as under :-

(2.) A sanction to prosecute the accused was given by the Administrator, Municipal Committee on 16.8.1987 while admittedly the appointing authority of the petitioner was Director, Local Bodies. Taking into consideration the stand of the accused, the Special Judge, vide order dated 3.6.1983, had discharged both the accused and had held that lack of proper sanction had vitiated the trial of both the accused. The competent authority is stated to have accorded its sanction for prosecution of the accused through the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, copy of which is annexed hereto as Annexure P/3. On the basis of this sanction again challan was filed in the Court on 1.9.1989 and charge was framed against the petitioner on 25.9.1989.

(3.) ON the afore-stated facts the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner stood discharged vide order dated 3.6.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge and thereafter there is no proper and valid sanction permitting institution of fresh proceedings or presentation of a challan against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as there is no sanction against the petitioner, the Court had no jurisdiction to summon the accused-petitioner, frame a charge or take any proceedings in furtherance thereto.