- (1.) ACCUSED -petitioners have directed the present revision petition against the order dated 01.2.2014 passed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Special Judge (CBI) Haryana at Panchkula in a case RC No.9(A)/ 2011/CBI/ACB/CHG dated 18.4.2011 under Sections 120 -B of the IPC read with Section 7,11,12 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station CBI ACB, Chandigarh vide which the trial Court has ordered to frame charges under Sections 120 -B read with Section 7,11 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) IN nutshell the case of the prosecution is that during the period of 2010 Rajinder Singh Rana (accused) Member Bar Council of India and Daulat Ram Sharma, Associate Managing Trustee, Bar Council of India were acting as public servants. Both of them entered into criminal conspiracy with one Moti Lal Jindal (approver), Vice Chairman, Swami Devi Dayal Law College situated at Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, Panchkula. All the aforesaid three pesons in furtherance of their conspiracy negotiated with accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1,25,000/ - on 28.10.2010 from Moti Lal Jindal (approver) for conductiung inspection of the college on 28.10.2010 and submitted favourable report by abusing their official position. On the basis of which Legal Education Committee in its meeting on 13.11.2010 approved 3 years LLB and 5 years BA, LLB courses to be run at Swami Devi Dayal Law College for the sessions 2009 -10 and 2011 - 12. Accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma have further demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/ - jointly for giving inspection report favourable to the aforesaid college for getting affiliation from Bar Council of India for running aforesaid educational academic sessions. In the process of aforesaid negotiations, aforesaid accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma, stayed in Hotel Western Court, Panchkula and payment of hotel was made by Swami Devi Dayal Dental College and Hospital.
(3.) CHARGE under Sections 120 -B of the IPC read with Section 7,11 and 12 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been ordered to be framed against the petitioners. The said order of framing the charges has been challenged in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that without sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cognizance cannot be taken against the petitioners. The trial Court has lost sight of this fact. It is submitted that trial Court has observed that in the previous correspondence the Bar Council of India has stated that there is no procedure for according sanction under the Advocates Act. It is submitted that recently the Bar Council of India in letter dated 1.2.2013 placed on the record has observed that State Bar Council is competent authority to accord sanction in respect of offence covered under Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further submitted that under Section 35 clause iii(d) of the Advocate Act the State Bar Council can remove the name of the Advocate from the State Role of Advocates. It is further contended that according to section 19 (1)(c) sanction for prosecution is required for takaing cognizance in respect of offence punishbale under Sections Section 7,11,12 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The competent authority to remove the Advocate from the office is State Bar Council. So, in the absence of sanction, proceedings cannot continue and framing of charge is required to be set aside. To support this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following authorities : - 1. General Officer Commanding Rashtriya Rifles vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2012 6 SCC 228. 2. Abdul Wahab Ansari vs. State of Bihar and another, 2000 AIR(SC) 3187and 3. State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and ors vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew, 2004 2 RCR(Cri) 663.;