The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's decision to set aside the Trial Court's order that had summoned Dr. Partap Singh Verka to face trial for bribery charges. The High Court's decision was based on the absence of prior sanction required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C Act). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the necessity of prior sanction before proceeding against a public servant under the P.C Act, even when using Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Introduction

• Appeal by the State of Punjab against High Court's decision.
• High Court set aside Trial Court's order summoning Dr. Partap Singh Verka.

Brief Facts of the Case

• FIR lodged against Dr. Partap Singh Verka and Vikas under the P.C Act.
• Allegations of bribery by the respondent for treating a prisoner.
• Vigilance Bureau laid a trap and caught Vikas red-handed.
• Respondent was arrested but later released on bail.

Trial and High Court Proceedings

• Complainant's deposition during the trial implicated the respondent.
• Trial Court summoned the respondent under Section 319 CrPC.
• Respondent challenged the order due to lack of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act.
• High Court set aside the Trial Court's order.

Legal Discussion

• Section 19 of the P.C Act requires prior sanction to prosecute a public servant.
• Relevant case laws: Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh and Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala.
• Emphasis on the mandatory nature of the sanction requirement.

Conclusion

• Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision.
• The procedure was flawed due to the absence of prior sanction.
• Appeal dismissed.

Additional Points

• Mention of the necessity for prosecution to obtain sanction before moving an application under Section 319 CrPC.
• Importance of compliance with Section 19 of the P.C Act for maintaining the integrity of the legal process.