Ashok V.Jauhar vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Ashok V. Jauhar Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board along with Vinod Kumar Malhotra, SubDivisional Engineer of the same Department through the present petition filed by them under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of the FIR dated 9.1.1991, registered u/s 379/411/120B IPC. registered at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala (Annexure P5) and also the charge framed by the Court against them under Sections 379/411 read with Section 120B IPC. The F.I.R. sought to be quashed runs thus :

"In brief the facts of the case are that on receipt of letter No. 15724 dated 4.12.1990 from I.G. Police, Vigilance Punjab State Electricity Board addressed to S.S.P. contents of which are already known to you, a case was registered on the basis of this. The brief facts of the case are :

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD.

From :

The I.G.of Police, V&S,

P.S.E.B., Patiala.

To

The Sr. Supdt. of Police,

Patiala.

Memo No. 15724

Dated 4.12.1990

Sub : Registration of criminal case u/s 379, 411, 120B IPC at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala.

Shri G.S. Dhillon, DSP/V&S, PSEB, Patiala held a surprise checking of Swaraj Mazda Mini Truck No. PIP5355 on 23.11.1990 after the office hours carrying the PVC scrap loaded from the PSEB Central Store, Patiala. Sh. Shamsher Singh Driver of the truck clarified that the requisite papers regarding the loaded scrap are with the concerned individual, who is present in the Central Store, Patiala where Shri Bhoj Raj Goel admitted having got loaded the PVC scrap in the mini truck with the help of the PSEB officials. Shri Rameshwar Singh Security Guard stated that the mini truck with loaded scrap had passed through the main gate of the Central Store without any gate pass of voucher at 6.30 p.m. under the orders of Sh. Jauhar, Xen. This vehicle with loaded scrap was got weighed at three Dharm Kandas and it weighed 5780 k.g & 5790 kg. respectively (average weight 5760 kg.). After deducting 3230 kg., the weight of the empty mini truck, the weight of the loaded PVC scrap only 1630 kg. scrap was purchased by Shri Bhoj Raj Goel as per the PSEB records, 900 kg of PVC scrap which was loaded in excess worth Rs. 19,000/ was being dishonestly removed from the PSEB Central Store, Patiala by Shri Bhoj Raj Goel with the active connivance and in conspiracy with EX. Ashok V. Jauhar, Xen, Er. Vinod Kumar Malhotra AEE, Shri Megh Raj, Head Store Keeper, Shri Suraj Parkash ASK, Shri K.K. Dogra, ASK and Shri Hari Singh, Security Guard all posted at PSEB, Central Store, Patiala.

You are, therefore, requested to direct the SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Patiala to register a case u/s 379, 411, 120B IPC against the aforesaid PSEB officers/officials and Shri Bhoj Rai Goel and to get the same investigated through a Sr. Police Officer.

Copy of FIR may also be made available to this office for information and record."

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even if the contents of the FIR, reproduced above, are taken to be true in their entirety, no case u/s 411 IPC is made out.

Mr. Mehtani, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, raised a preliminary objection i.e. that when the charge has been framed, the petitioners may have other remedies open to them but they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. For his aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies upon Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors., 1994(2) Crimes 970, a judgment of the apex Court wherein it was held as follows :

"5. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 Cr.P.C. on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out as has been done in the instant case, the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the chargesheet submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional Court, if so satisfied, can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. nor would it be justified invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course, We hastened to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence."

Unable to distinguish the judgment aforesaid in any regard whatsoever, learned counsel for petitioners then raised the point of sanction as envisaged under the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. His precise argument is that for initiation of proceedings u/s 411 IPC, the petitioners being government officers, sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C. was a prerequisite and inasmuch as the same was not obtained, the trial is vitiated. Counsel relies upon Sant Lal v. Bhagwati Parshad, 1984(2) RCR 459.

This Court would have gone into this issue but in view of the fact that neither from the F.I.R. nor from the entire petition it is forthcoming as to whether the selling of scrap was included in the duties of petitioners, this Court refrains itself from going into this issue. It is not disputed that the acts done in discharge of duties only attract the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. That being the admitted position, this Court refrains itself from going into the question posed by the learned counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Annexure P4, a letter from the Controller of Stores, to the Chief Engineer, PSEB, Patiala, dated 15.11.1994 wherein it is mentioned that according to the report of Kotwali, none of the employees/officials was responsible for this as on physical verification, the balance goods of the store were found upto the mark according to the books. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel. The case of offence is not that the goods were removed, but that these were taken in excess of the requirement.

Finding no merit in this petition, I dismiss the same.