J.C.Goel, Sub-Divisional Officer vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

In FIR No. 167 recorded in Police Station Sadar Patiala on 4th October, 1988, it was reported that while doing sewerage work in the Urban Estate PhaseII at Patiala during the period from July, 1979 to September, 1980, petitioner J.C. Goel, S.D.O. in criminal miscellaneous No. 27M of 1989 had caused to the respondentState of Punjab a loss of Rs. 1.06,223.13. Shri R.P. Bawa was the Sectional Officer posted under him at the relevant time and Smt. Harvinder Kaur was the SubDivisional Clerk. It is also stated in the FIR that instead of 1988 manholes only 127 were actually construed. Building and other material in respect of 61 manholes was, therefore, misappropriated. Total loss caused to the State on this score was to the tune of Rs. 1,90.957.97. Responsibility for the remaining amount of Rs. 84,754.84 was stated to be of Shri S.K. Sharma, S.D.O., who worked on this seat from 1976 to June, 1979. During his tenure of his office also Shri R.P. Bawa was the Sectional Officer and Smt. Harvinder Kaur was the Sub Divisional Clerk. Responsibility for the loss suffered by the respondent through miscalculation in accounts is said to be of the Sub Divisional Clerk.

Various grounds urged for quashing the FIR are that the occurrence is of the period 1976 to 1980 and the FIR against the petitioner was lodged eight years thereafter in 1988, that in terms of rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II, the prosecution could be launched against the petitioner within four years of the occurrence and not thereafter and that recording of the FIR on 4th October, 1988 in respect of the occurrence of the years 1976 to 1980 is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. To establish his own bona fides, the petitioner asserted that he was complaining against the Sectional Officer all through immediately after taking over and could not therefore himself be blamed for the lapses highlighted against the Sectional Officer.

I have heard Shri Ravinder Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri S.S. Saron, AAG, for the State and have carefully gone through the relevant record.

Basing his argument on the observations made in B.N. Ganjoo v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 301, Des Raj Singhal v. The State of Punjab, 1986 Chandigarh Law Reporter 237, Kailash Nath v. The State of Punjab, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 108 , Siriniwas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunchal Pradesh, 1988(2) RCR 401 , The State of Punjab v. Sain Dass and others, Vol. XCV1988(1) Punjab Law Reporter 34 and The State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989(1) All India Crl. Law Reporter 235, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the proceedings taken against the petitioner in 1988 in respect of the occurrence of the years 19761980 are much too stale and call for being quashed at this score alone. The relevant observations read as under :

"Lastly, it was urged by learned Counsel for the respondents in these appeals that on the same principle on which criminal appeal No. 40 of 1987 in the matter of Des Raj Singhal was dismissed, these appeals also deserve to be dismissed. So far as this submission is concerned, we find substance as regards the appeal against Kailash Nath. The First Information Report in this case was lodged on 27th August, 1985, that is, after about six years of the accrual of the cause of action or taking place of the events which took place in 1979 and after about three years even from 31st October, 1982 when the respondent retired from service. Now in 1988 it would be pursuing a stable matter. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court quashing the First Information Report as against Kailash Nath, respondent in criminal appeal No. 422 of 1988, deserves to be maintained though on a different ground."

In this case also, the occurrence is of 1976 to 1980 and the FIR was lodged in 1988. The inordinate delay of over eight years in lodging the FIR sounds the deathknell of the protection case against the petitioner. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27M of 1989 is thus allowed. FIR No. 167 lodged against the petitioner J.C. Goel in Police Station in Sadar Patiala on 4th October, 1988, under Sections 5(1)(C) and (D) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409/467/468/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed.

Learned State Counsel referred me to the Supreme Court observations made in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others, AIR 1989 SC 1 and urged that since prima facie case against the petitioner is duly made out from the contents of the FIR lodged against him, the FIR as also the resultant proceedings against him should not be quashed. I see no merit in the argument advanced nor is it supported from the observations made in the authority cited and as such, the observations made therein are of no help to the respondentState.

JUDGMENT accordingly.