Allowed

Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2011CRM-M/36683/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner for corruption and forgery. The court held that a departmental inquiry had found the petitioner innocent, and since the sanction for prosecution ignored this report and treated cases identically, the FIR was quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 32 dated 24.5.1996 registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, along with all consequential proceedings including charge order and charge sheets, were quashed.

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-36683 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-36683 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24,2011

¶4

Amarjit Singh ................................................................ Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab ............................................................ Respondent

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶8

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

Present: Mr. B.B.S.Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

RITU BAHRI, J.

¶13

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing FIR No. 32 dated 24.5.1996 registered under Sections 13 (1) (c) read with Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 465, 466, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Patiala (Annexure P-1) and further proceedings including the charge order/charge sheets Annexures P2 and P-3, P-3/A and P-3/B passed by the Special Judge, Ludhiana.

¶14

Brief background of the case is that Amarjit Singh-petitioner was posted as Panchayat Secretary in Machhiwara Block, District Ludhiana,

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. M-36683 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶16

during the year 1990-91 and 1991-92. The petitioner was posted as Panchayat Secretary for the areas Haibowbet, Ramgarh, Taha and Manewal. The petitioner received a sum of 90,000/- from Gram Panchayat Haibowbet and an amount of 90,000/- was received from Gram Panchayat Manewal for the purpose of levelling of land. This work was entrusted by the petitioner to tractor owners and payments were to be made to them through cheque. However, the petitioner withdrew this cash amount from the Bank and give to the labourers as they were not ready to accept the cheque.

¶17

A FIR No. 32 was registered under Sections 409, 465, 466, 471 and 120-B IPC on 24.5.1996 for misusing the funds in a bogus manner. No such work of levelling of land was conducted. The amount received by him was misappropriated by preparing forged record. Departmental inquiry was initiated and it was found that Amarjit Singh, Panchayat Secretary, did not embezzle any amount of the grant given to the Gram Panchayat Haibowbet and Manewal. The payment which was made to the tractor owners by cheque was duly encashed by them. The payment made to the labourers could not be made by cheque as they were not ready to accept so. The total grant was properly utilised for development of the village.

¶18

FIRs were registered against similarly situated persons and charges were also framed. One such Criminal Revision No. 454 of 2003 has been filed by Devinder Singh, Panchayat Secretary in Machhiwara Block. This petition for quashing of framing of charge for offence under Sections 409, 467, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1) (c) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been allowed by this Court on 20.1.2006. In this order, it has been observed that when the sanction to prosecute the

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-36683 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶20

petitioner was granted by Director Panchayat, Punjab, it was not brought to his knowledge that Devinder Singh had been found innocent in the inquiry report dated 31.10.2000. The sanction was given at the instance of Vigilance Bureau after going through their file. Applying the law laid down in the case of P.S.Rajya v. State of Bihar 1996 (4) S.C.T. 21 criminal miscellaneous was allowed qua Devinder Singh. The State of Punjab had approached the Supreme Court by way of filing a SLP. This SLP was dismissed on 28.8.2006 vide Annexure P-6.

¶21

In view of the above factual position, Mr. Sobti, counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P-7 i.e. sanction for prosecution given by the Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, on 6.10.2000. No reference to the inquiry report in which the petitioner has been found innocent has been made. The sanction has been given on the recommendation of the Vigilance Bureau. Reference has also been made to Annexure P-8 i.e. sanction for prosecution of Devinder Singh in which no reference of the departmental inquiry report by which he has been found innocent has been made. It is prayed that since the petitioner is identically placed as Devinder Singh, FIR No. 32 dated 24.5.1996 registered under Sections 13 (1) (c) read with Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 465, 466, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab, has not been able to dispute the above factual position to the extent that the Supreme Court has upheld the order of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 454 of 2003.

¶23

The criminal miscellaneous is allowed and FIR No. 32 dated 24.5.1996 registered under Sections 13 (1) (c) read with Sections 7, 13 (2)

¶24

[ 4 ]

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M-36683 of 2009 (O&M)

¶26

of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 465, 466, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Patiala is quashed with all consequential proceedings.

¶27

24.1.2011 Rupi

¶28

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikki Tyagi @ Neha Tyagi @ Neha Saini and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Daisy and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Muskan @ Pooja Dubey & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pardeep Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rubi Rani & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.