M.M.S.BEDI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of the order annexure P -6 dated June 4, 2016 in FIR No. 5 dated February 12, 2015 under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Range, Jalandhar, dismissing the application of the petitioner for discharging the accused as the Special Court is not competent to take the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner without a valid sanction of prosecution from the competent authority. He has also sought the quashing of order framing charges on June 4, 2016 vide annexure P -7.
(2.) The petitioner had filed an application under Section 207 read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. claiming that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was accorded by Chairman, Market Committee, Hoshiarpur but at the time of presentation of final report, neither the proceedings wherein the sanction was accorded, nor the law in which the Chairman had power to accord the sanction were supplied to the accused. The Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Committee Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1988, provides that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Committee itself and not the Chairman as such in the absence of any regulation, permitting the Chairman to accord sanction, is an act of granting sanction causing prejudice to the accused as such a prayer was made directing the prosecution to supply the documents to the petitioner.
(3.) The prosecution agency filed reply raising objections that the application was not maintainable. It was averred in the reply that copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution stand supplied to the accused and that the petitioner is not entitled to ask the prosecution to provide the regulation or rules empowering the Chairman to accord the sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner and that the question regarding the validity of the sanction can be considered only at the time of final stage of the case.;