THE STATE OF PUNJAB [APPELLANT] Vs. PARTAP SINGH VERKA [RESPONDENT]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1943 OF 2024
(2JB, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and PRASANNA B. VARALE JJ., delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.)
Facts: The State of Punjab is in appeal here against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2018, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana setting aside the order dated 20.05.2017 of the Trial Court which had summoned respondent Pratap Singh Verka under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) to face the trial for the offences under sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C Act’)
Issue: Whether court can proceed with a case involving offence committed by public servant under PCA without prosecution sanction?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:
While allowing the Section 319 (CrPC) application moved by the Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court did not consider the question of sanction. Before this Court the stand of the State of Punjab is that there was no need for this sanction as cognizance was taken in the Court itself under Section 319 of the CrPC.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
An application was moved by the State on 18.05.2017 under Section 319 CrPC, which was allowed on 20.05.2017 and Dr. Partap Singh Verka was summoned to face the trial. The accused Respondent challenged this order of the Trial Court before the High Court which has set aside the order of the Trial Court, as sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act had not been taken. The accused Respondent challenged this order of the Trial Court before the High Court which has set aside the order of the Trial Court, as sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act had not been taken.
Held: The court disposed off the present appeal and held that, “It is a well settled position of law that courts cannot take cognizance against any public servant for offences committed under Sections 7,11,13 & 15 of the P.C. Act, even on an application under section 319 of the CrPC, without first following the requirements of Section 19 of the P.C Act. Here, the correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act from the appropriate Government, before formally moving an application before the Court under Section 319 of CrPC. In fact, the Trial Court too should have insisted on the prior sanction, which it did not. In absence of the sanction the entire procedure remains flawed. We are completely in agreement by the decision of the High Court and therefore are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed.”
