Atma Singh Kaler vs State of Punjab

G.S Chahal, J.

Shri Atma Singh Kaler, petitioner is Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD, B&R, Punjab. Case First Information Report No. 92 dated 5.9.1989 for an offence under section 5 (1) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been registered at Police Station City, Muktsar, District Faridkot, The petitioner has come up before this Court for quashing of those proceedings.

The case has been registered on the basis of a report made by Gurmail Singh, Inspector Vigilance, Muktsar dated 5.9.1989 wherein he has alleged that according to reliable source it has been confirmed that the petitioner has made properties beyond his resources. To ascertain his income and expenditure, a check period of January, 1973 to April 1985 was taken. During this tenure from his known sources, petitioner''s income comes to Rs. 2,03,889.13 whereas he has spent a sum of Rs. 2,89,649.9194. He had, thus, raised more than Rs. 2,85,760.81 during the aforesaid check period for purchasing property in his own name and in the name of his family members. He has not given any satisfactory reply for spending this excess amount during the checkperiod. He has spent money beyond his known sources of income. The details of his total income from salary and interest have been enumerated. Similarly, the expenses which included his domestic expenses and purchase of land in the name of his wife Smt. Gurdev Kaur and a bangalow in her name, have also been enumerated.

The learned counsel for the petitioner says that even if the allegations are accepted the same do not make out a case under the aforesaid Act and that the FIR was registered in September 1985, no challan has been presented in Court and the registration of the FIR is an abuse of the process of law. After hearing the learned counsel, I am unable to agree with his submissions. In the FIR, the total emoluments of salary and income from interest of the petitioner have been detailed and his total expenditure have also been enumerated. A major portion of the said amounts has been spent on purchasing land and a bungalow whichworks out to Rs. 1,50.00/. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & others, AIR 1989 SC 1, while dealing with the powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to be exercised by the High Court the Supreme Court made the following observations :

"..It is trite that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not That is the function of the Trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. Though it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court is guided by the allegations whether those allegations set out in the complaint or the chargesheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and the resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not..."

Seeking guidance from the above observations, it cannot be said at this stage that the allegations are false and no offence is made out. The case was registered in September 1985 and the challan should have been presented by now, but in such like case where the Govt. servant indulges in corruption, time is required to collect evidence with respect to each and every item. In any, case, it cannot be said that there has been inordinate, delay in the presentation of the challan.

In Mangilal Vyas v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 473 : JT 1990 (1) SC 74 , dealing with cases relating to offences of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds which had been pending for the last 25 years, their Lordships only issued directions for disposal of cases within one year, but it was held to be not expedient to terminate the proceedings. I sock guidance from this authority and thus, hold that the delay in presentation of the challan is not a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, I find no force in this criminal miscellaneous and the same is hereby dismissed.

Misc dismissed.