SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THE petitioner, who is facing trial in Sessions case No. 13 of 1999 titled "Balbir Kaur v. Jasbir Singh", has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P. for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby his application for dropping the proceedings against him for want of sanction of the Central Government as envisaged under Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Area (Amendment) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was dismissed while observing as under :- "There is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel. So far as the Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act are concerned the same are not applicable on the merits of the present case. As per Section 4 any police official above the rank of HC can fire on any person and even cause death of any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order. But in this case it is nobody's case that Dalbir Singh was ever fired upon or that he was acting in contravention of law and order for the time being in force in the State of Punjab. Section 5 deals with the powers to destroy arms dumps, fortified position etc. and Section 6 deals with the protection of persons acting under Sections 4 and 5. The allegations against the accused/applicants are that they had kidnapped Dalbir Singh, husband of the complainant for ransom purpose and thereafter he had not been seen till date. Thus, the provisions of aforesaid Sections 4, 5 and 6 are not attracted in the present case. Sanction is required by law only if the accused are alleged to have committed an offence while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. The offences for which the applicants are being tried can by no stretch of imagination be said to have committed by them in the discharge of their official duties. Thus, without expressing my opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that keeping in view the allegations against the applicants, I am of the view that the provisions of the above sections of the Act are not applicable in this case."
(2.) THE aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner after about three years of the passing of the impugned order on the ground that the husband of the complainant died in an encounter and for the said occurrence, the sanction of the Central Government is necessary. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. In this case, Dalbir Singh, husband of the complainant was neither a suspect nor accused nor legally arrested. He was abducted for extortion of money. In my opinion, such an act is a simple crime which does not require any sanction because the offence committed by the accused was not in the discharge of their official duty. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, no ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.;