Parshotam Lal vs State (C.B.I./S.P.E., Chandigarh)

G.S. Chahal, J.

Parshotam Lal who is being tried before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, in the case titled as C.B.I. v. Lachman Singh etc. has come in this petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of orders annexures P1 to P3 and all consequent proceedings.

The prosecution for various offences relating to FIR R.C. 15 dated 25.3.1977 were initiated against the petitioner and his coaccused Lachhman Singh, who has since died. These proceedings were without a sanction under Section 197 CrPC. Since an objection was taken with respect to the validity of the trial for want of sanction, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 26th March 1987 annexure P2 ordered the discharge of the petitioner but made a clarification that if the C.B.I./SPE is able to obtain sanction from the competent authority, then the proceedings in the case will start from the stage at which the same was pending.

After obtaining sanction, a supplementary challan was put in Court and the petitioner filed two applications, one with a prayer that he be discharged and the other that the proceedings cannot start from the stage at which the same stood on 26th March 1987. These applications were dismissed vide orders annexures P1 and P3.

There is force in the contention of the learned counsel that the previous proceedings being without legal sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. were without jurisdiction and the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences and whatever evidence was recorded or proceedings taken, they were not valid and even if the Magistrate had added the words that the proceedings shall start from the stage where they were pending on 26th March 1987, he has the right to claim a fresh trial. In respect to cases where sanction under Section 197 CrPC. is required, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence for want of sanction. Any proceedings initiated without a valid sanction are void ab initio. The learned Magistrate who recorded the order annexure P2 fell in error to lay that the case will start from the stage at which the accused was being discharged. The learned Magistrate who passed the order annexure P3 was also in error to have declined the prayer of the petitioner that the trial should commence afresh. JUDGMENT annexure P3 is hereby quashed.

I, however, find no force in the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner was entitled to discharge simply on the ground that there was delay in filing of the fresh challan. It is not disputed that the objection with respect to sanction was not taken at the earliest available opportunity by the petitioner. I thus find no fault with the validity of order annexure P1. To do justice between the parties, a direction is issued that the trial shall be concluded within 11/2 years from the next date of hearing. Parties to appear before the trial court on 13121993.