Dharam Vir Singh vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg, J.

Dharam Vir Singh Jethi has moved the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that FIR No. 211 dated 15.12.1988, registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala, under Sections 402/465/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, be quashed.

Briefly, it has been alleged that the petitioner was working as an Agriculture Officer at Patiala and he was neither Manager of the firm in question nor it was under his control. It has further been alleged that Kashmira Singh was working as Manager since 1977 and it was under the direct control of Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala. It has further been alleged that S. Sardul Singh was to supervise the cutting of the paddy crop and he was to keep/store it in the Government Warehouse. One key was to be kept by S. Sardul Singh and other was to be kept after putting seal with the Firm Manager and no such duty was assigned to the petitioner. S.Sardul Singh vide his letter No. 558, dated 19.10.1984 further entrusted the work to Rameshwar Dass Duggal; that there was delay in as much as the occurrence allegedly took place in the year 1984, whereas the FIR wa registered on 15.12.1988 and no challan was presented in the Court till the institution of the present petition. In para 4 of the present petition it has also been averred that there was a specific opinion even at the level of Director, Vigilance Bureau that no case was made out so far as the present petitioner was concerned.

During the course or arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is a specific mention, even in the reply to para No. 2 of the petition that the dried paddy crop was entrusted to Kashmira Singh, Agriculture Inspector, against proper receipt duly signed by the aforesaid Kashmira Singh.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Neki Ram v. State of Haryana, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 415 : 1990(2) CLR 128, where considerable delay on the part of the prosecution was disliked. Here, attention has also been invited to J.C. Goel, Sub Divisional Officer v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) Recent C.R. 467 , where a delay in lodging the FIR in respect of loss of building material was disliked.

Here the most important issue is that the petitioner had no role to play and was never a custodian of the paddy crop in question. Consequently, the FIR in question is hereby quashed qua the petitioner only and the present petition stands disposed of.

JUDGMENT accordingly.