Punjab Government’s Appeal Dismissed, Supreme Court Upholds High Court Verdict in Dr Verka Bribery Case

The Supreme Court rejected the state of Punjab’s appeal, hence upholding the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s verdict that nullified the trial court’s order to summon Dr Partap Singh Verka under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It originates from an accusation of bribery against Dr Verka, who is a state official, and the demanding intricacies of the law as provided in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Back in April 2016, Gurwinder Singh set out to obtain medical care for his brother who was behind bars at Amritsar’s Guru Nanak hospital. In a First Information Report (FIR) made on April 25 that year, Dr Partap Singh, then a doctor in practice there, was alleged to have requested a bribe of Rs.10,000 from Gurwinder via Vikas, a ward boy, as a condition for admitting/treating his brother.

According to the FIR, later on, Dr Verka demanded an extra Rs.10,000 for ongoing treatment to be paid in two instalments of Rs.5,000 each. Instead of that Gurwinder took it to the Vigilance Bureau which set the trap. This led to his immediate arrest after receiving Rs 5,000 from Gurwinder on April 25, 2016, at the parking lot of the hospital, Dr Verka was also arrested on that day.

Both accused were released on bail in May 2016 following their arrests. On December 22, 2016, however, only Vikas was named an accused in a chargesheet which surprisingly left out Dr. Verka. This became a major twist during the hearing.

Gurwinder testified on May 12, 2017, that Dr. Verka had demanded a bribe leading the trial court to summon him under Section 319 of the CrPc. Dr Verka High Court ruled in favour on 2 August 2018. The High Court in reversing the trial court decision noted that the order lacked lawful sanction stipulated in Section 19 of the PC Act therefore made the summons ineffective.

Despite a decision by the High Court, Punjab State did appeal to the Supreme Court. Punjab State argued that the provision in section 19 of the P.C. Act which demands consent should not be applicable in situations where courts take up matters under section 319 of CrPC. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that the requirement for consent is necessary as earlier ruled in various judgments.

In Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 709], the Supreme Court clarified that Section 19 of the P.C. Act bars a court from taking cognizance of an offense under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 without previous sanction. It was stated that:

“This section creates a complete bar on the power of the court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of this sub-section. If the sub-section is read as a whole, it will clearly show that the sanction for prosecution has to be granted with respect to a specific accused and only after sanction has been granted that the court gets the competence to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by such public servant…”

In Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala, (2007) 14 SCC 783, this Court again reiterated this provision and held:

“As has been rightly held by the High Court in view of what has been stated in Dilawar Singh case [(2005) 12 SCC 709 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 727] the trial court was not justified in holding that Section 319 of the Code has to get preference/primacy over Section 19 of the Act, and that matter stands concluded.”

Analyzing the statements and legal cases carefully, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the prosecution should have obtained the necessary sanction from the relevant authority before it made an application under Section 319 of the CrPC. Consequently, the trial court’s order served to summon Dr Verka lacked legal standing due to this procedural aspect.

At last, the High Court’s ruling backed up the Supreme Court’s position to the effect that the complaints against a public officer for purported offences under Sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 of the PC Act could not be entertained by any court without previous sanction. The challenge filed by Punjab State was rejected upholding the procedural provisions in the PC Act.