LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus LABH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2014] 11 S.C.R. 312 STATE OF PUNJAB v. LABH SINGH . (Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2010) DECEMBER 17. 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s. 13(1 )(c) rlw s.13(1)(2); Penal Code, 1860 - ss.2181409146514671120-8 - C Sanction for prosecution of retired employees - Held: Sanction to prosecute public servant for the offences under POC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the Court - However prosecution u/s.197 Cr.P.C is available to the concerned 0 public servant even after retirement - Code of Criminal Procedure, 193 - s.197. Partly allowing the appeal, the court HELD: In the present case the public servants in E question had retired on 13.12.1999 and 30.04.2000. The sanction to prosecute them was rejected subsequent to their retirement. The public servants having retired from service there was no occasion to consider grant of sanction under section 19 of the POC Act. The law on the F point is quite clear that sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences under the POC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the court. The High Court was therefore, not, justified in setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge insofar as charge under the POC G Act was concerned. However, as regards charges for the offences punishable under the IPC, the High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike section 19 of the POC Act, the protection under section 197 of Cr.P.C. is available to the concerned H 312 • • STATE OF PUNJAB v. LABH SINGH 313 public servant even after retirement. Therefore, if the A matter was considered by the sanctioning authority and the sanction to prosecute was rejected first on 13.09.2000 and secondly on 24.09.2003, the court could not have taken cognizance insofar as the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code are concerned. The B recourse in such cases is either to challenge the order of the Sanctioning Authority or to approach it again if there is any fresh material. The prosecution cannot keep waiting till a public servant retires and then choose to file charge-sheet against him after his retirement, thereby C setting at naught the protection available to him under Section 19 of the POC Act. [Paras 7, 8] [317-C-E, G; 318- A-D, F] S. A. Venkataraman v. State 1958 SCR 1040; C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra (1970) 3 SCC 537; 1971 (3) D SCR 236; Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa (1998) 6 SCC 411: 1998 (3) SCR 961; K. Veeraswamy v. Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 440: 1977 (3) SCR 758; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen (2010) 14 SCC 527: 2010 (13) SCR 1200 - relied on. E Case Law Reference: 1958 SCR 1040 Relied on Para 7 1971 (3) SCR 236 Relied on Para 7 F 1998 (3) SCR 961 Relied on Para 7 1977 (3) SCR 758 Relied on Para 7 2010 (13) SCR 1200 Relied on Para 8 G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .01.2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 1743 of 2005. H 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R .• A Sanchar Anand, Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. B Jaspreet Gogia, Vipin Gogia, Brijendra Singh for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.1. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order dated 17.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No.17 43 of 2005 whereby it set aside the order of the Special C Judge, Patiala dated 07.06.2005 framing charges against one Sikandar Singh and the present respondent. 2. FIR No.57 was lodged with Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala on 13.08.1997. It was alleged 0 that semi-Government letter dated 04.03.1994 had stated that pursuant to certain raids conducted at the site for checking the earth work done on Bhakra main line, it was found that as , regards four projects cross sections/estimates were not prepared before doing any work and that it appeared that the E estimates were actually prepared by the concerned Government servants after completion of work thereby violating provisions of PWD code and causing loss to the tune of Rs.3,69,603 to the exchequer. Pursuant to said FIR crime was registered and investigation was undertak
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.