LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB versus PARTAP SINGH VERKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 62 : 2024 INSC 483 The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka (Criminal Appeal No. 1943 of 2024) 08 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as sanction u/s. 19 of the P.C. Act was not sought. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s. 19 – Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – On facts, the trial court summoned the respondent-public servant u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the P C Act – High Court set aside the order of the trial court as sanction u/s. 19 was not sought – Correctness: Held: Respondent is a ‘Public Servant’ as defined u/s. 2(c) of the P.C Act – Words and phrases used in s. 19(1) of the P.C Act itself make it evident that the provision is mandatory in nature – Courts cannot take cognizance against any public servant for offences committed u/ss. 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the P.C. Act, even on an application u/s. 319 CrPC, without first following the requirements of s. 19 – On facts, the correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction u/s. 19 from the appropriate Government, before formally moving an application before the Court u/s. 319 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 – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court does not call for interference – ss. 7, 11, 13 and 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319. [Paras 7, 10, 11] * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 63 The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka Case Law Cited Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh [2005] Supp. 5 SCR 83 : (2005) 12 SCC 709; Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala [2007] 4 SCR 1155 : (2007) 14 SCC 783; Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab [2016] 5 SCR 653 : (2016) 8 SCC 722 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Previous sanction; Public servant; Mandatory in nature. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1943 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2018 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No. 2317 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Vivek Jain, D.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, Abhinav Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. R.P. Nagrath, Sr. Adv., Manuj Nagrath, Raktim Gogoi, Kartikeya Singh, Shivam Sharma, S Vinod, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. 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’). 64 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2016, an FIR u/s 7/13 (2) of the P.C Act was lodged against Respondent- Dr. Partap Singh Verka and another co-accused i.e. ‘Vikas’, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. It was disclosed in the FIR that the present respondent was working as a doctor in Guru Nanak Hospital at the relevant point of time when complainant-Gurwinder Singh sought treatment for his brother who was in jail. The complainant alleged that on 20.04.2016 the Respondent took a bribe of Rs.10,000 from the complainant through the accused-Vikas for admitting the complainant’s brother in his hospital, as he was otherwise reluctant to treat a prisoner. Again on 24.04.2016, the respondent demanded another Rs.10,000/- to keep the patient in the hospital for further treatment and asked the complainant to give that amount to the other accused i.e. ‘Vikas’ in two installments of Rs.5,000 each. The complainant, however, contacted the Vigilance Bureau instead and the officials of Vigilance laid a trap to catch the culprits. On 25.04.2016, the accused-Vikas (ward attendant) was caught red- handed in the parking lot of the hospital receiving Rs.5000 from the complainan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.