Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) A point of substantial importance raised in this writ petition is whether the State Government has power to review its earlier order passed under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The State Government, - -vide order dated July 10, 1973 (annexure P -2), refused sanction for the prosecution of the Petitioner under Section 197 of the Code on the basis of a complaint but, later on, - -vide order dated June 15, 1978 (annexure P -3), accorded sanction for the prosecution of the Petitioner on the basis of the same complaint. Since interpretation of Section 197 of the Code is involved, its relevant part is reproduced hereunder: 197. (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction: (a) * * * * (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.
(2.) THE Petitioner, Surjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the State Government, annexure P -3, by which sanction has been granted against him under Section 197 of the Code for his prosecution along with another. The writ petition came up for hearing before D.S. Tewatia, J., on February 16, 1979, who was of the opinion that a question of considerable legal importance arises in this case and there is no direct decision cowering the point and desired that the matter may be decided by a larger Bench. That is how this petition has been placed before us for final decision. It is alleged in the petition that on January 20, 1972, two First Information Reports Nos. 19 and 20 were registered at Police Station, Ropar, under Sections 307, 332, 148/149, Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 - -27 of the Arms Act and Section 45 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, against a Jatha of Nihangs and they were asked to join investigation by the police but instead the Nihangs took positions in Gurdwara Sadabrat and refused to come out in spite of request by the police. After some time, they attacked the police party injuring a number of them and the police had to fire in self -defence as a result of which a number of persons were killed and injured. The Akali leaders made the incident a political issue and met the Governor of Punjab for registration of the case against the police officials/officers, to which the Governor did not agree but, later on, the Punjab Government appointed Shri R.S. Narula as one -man Commission to hold an enquiry into the incident. The Commission gave its report and held that the firing was justified but was excessive. The Akalis filed a complaint against the Petitioner and 33 other police officers under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, after the Commission had given its report. While the case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, for recording of preliminary evidence, application annexure P -l, was filed by Karam Singh, Respondent No. 3, before the State Government for grant of sanction for the prosecution of -the Petitioner and another Deputy Superintendent of Police stating therein that the trial of Deputy Superintendents of Police could only take place if sanction under Section 197 of the Code was granted by the State Government. In the meantime, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had summoned the Petitioner but since the State Government refused to grant sanction for the prosecution, - -vide annexure P -2, the Petitioner was discharged for want of sanction. The complainant Karam Singh, Respondent No. 3. filed a revision petition against the order of discharge of the Petitioner which is still pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar.
(3.) IT is further alleged that the Shiromani Akali Dal has come in power in the State of Punjab and the present Ministry, taking advantage of its position and in order to appease the Akali Janta, has set aside the earlier order of the State Government and has now -granted sanction for the prosecution of the Petitioner and another Deputy Superintendent of Police, - -wide annexure P -3. It is specifically pointed out that in the order annexure P -3 there is no mention of the earlier order of refusal nor was the Petitioner granted any opportunity whatsoever before passing the impugned" order. It is also averred that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind for the reason that the Government was not conscious of its earlier order annexure P -2 when the impugned order annexure P -3 was passed. It is also alleged that once power was exercised under Section 197 of the Code and the State Government refused to grant sanction, the order could not be reviewed and there was no provision under the Code giving power to review the earlier order. It was further averred that the impugned order is mala fide as it has been passed to appease the Shiromani Akali Dal.;