Bansal’s lawyers contended that the proceedings were invalid due to the absence of sanction required under Section 17A of the PCA to prosecute the judge allegedly linked to the bribery (Archive)The Enforcement Directorate Tuesday opposed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court a plea moved by M3M Director Roop Bansal seeking to quash a corruption case registered against him for allegedly conspiring to bribe a trial court judge. In the case, Bansal is booked under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) along with Section 120-B of the IPC.Bansal’s lawyers contended that the proceedings were invalid due to the absence of sanction required under Section 17A of the PCA to prosecute the judge allegedly linked to the bribery. The counsel argued that a person could not be prosecuted solely under Section 120-B for criminal conspiracy unless tried alongside the public servant accused, and that without sanction against the judge, the entire case stood vitiated.Countering this, senior panel counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing with Lokesh Narang for the ED, contended that the plea of want of sanction was not available to Bansal as he was a private individual, not a public servant. The ED further submitted that even if proceedings against a public servant were barred for lack of sanction, it would not automatically nullify the prosecution of private individuals accused of aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit offences under the PCA or under Section 120-B of the IPC.After Chief Justice Sheel Nagu had recused from hearing the matter as he had dealt with it on administrative side, Bansal’s plea was listed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing virtually for the petitioner, sought an adjournment due to network issues. Considering the request, the bench adjourned the matter to July 30 for final arguments.The corruption FIR quashing plea in Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana has seen unusual twists and turns. It was first listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023. After change in roster, the matter was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat who recused from hearing the case in January this year. The matter was then listed before Justice Kaul, before whom it was dismissed as withdrawn. It then went to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who heard the matter and reserved for judgment on May 2, with pronouncement due on May 12, when the Chief Justice, citing “the interest of the institution” and the need to “preserve and protect the reputation and dignity” of Justice Sindhu, reassigned it to himself on May 10.This case was assigned to Justice Kaul after Chief Justice Nagu recused himself from hearing it on July 3, citing the need to uphold the principle that justice must not only be done but “should also appear to have been done.”Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd