Charanjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Pb.
Case brief
What is this about?
of 2006 Charanjit Singh and another Vs.…
of 2006 Charanjit Singh and another Vs.…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc.No.69051-M of 2006
Charanjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab
Present : Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.144 dated 25.9.2006, registered under Sections 409/120-B of the IPC at Police Station City Fazilka,Distt.Ferozepur.
The petitioners, who are Field Officers in `Markfed' are accused of selling 632 bags of wheat, weighing 50 kgs. each, for the crop year 2002-03, as per checking conducted on 19.8.2006.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that physical verification was incorrectly carried out and the sealed godowns, if checked today, would reveal that there is no shortage. It is further contended that wheat was damaged during storage. The life of wheat is 9 months and, therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
paper book.
The petitioners are Field Officers, responsible for the wheat stored in `Markfed' godowns. A physical verification carried out on 19.8.2006, reveals a shortage of 632 bags of wheat, weighting 50 kgs. each. It is not denied that the custody of the wheat was with the petitioners.
In view of the aforementioned facts, no ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Dismissed.
7.11.2006 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in a case alleging shortage of wheat in charge given custody.
Charanjit Singh
another
State of Punjab
Rajive Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court