Manohar Lal Sehgal vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, relates to quashment of the impugned First Information Report No. 32 dated 7th April 1989 registered at Police Station, Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, against the petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and under Section 5(1)(c)(d), 5(2) (47) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and the resultant proceedings taken thereunder.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, as emerge from the impugned first information report, are, that during the year 1978 the construction work of Dashmesh Academy Road, Anandpur Sahib was under Shri Kewal Krishan, SubDivisional Officer, Sub Division PWD (B&R) Ropar and the petitioner who was posted as Sectional Officer, Sub Division PWD (B&R) Nangal. The said road was got constructed by work charged labourers regarding which the entries in the measurement book were got recorded by the petitioner who also attested the other relevant entries made by Harpal Singh, Work Munshi, PWD (B&R) Anandpur Sahib, Sub Division, Ropar and those made in the muster roll by Kundan Singh Mate. Payment of the work done by the work charged labourers was made by the petitioner, who got appended fictitious thumb impressions and bogus muster roll No. 67 and 98 were prepared. The comparison of the fictitious thumb impressions on the aforesaid muster rolls were got checked from the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, who gave his report and on its basis it was found that the present petitioner in connivance with Work Munshi Harpal Singh and Kundan Singh Mate appended fictitious thumb impression and thereby an amount of Rs. 6,010.50 which was allegedly paid to the labourers was actually embezzled by them. It is also stated therein that illegal embezzlement has been committed by the petitioner and his other two aforesaid companions by illegally misusing their official position and thereby they had committed an offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 465, 471, 120B of the IPC and under Section 5(1), read with Section 5(2)(47) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The State in its reply has admitted the registration of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and pleaded that regular enquiry was pending with the Vigilance Department. It was further pleaded that during the investigation the record prepared by the petitioner was found to be forged. Counsel for the parties were heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the first information report concerning the alleged illegal bogus payments made on the basis of the forged entries in the muster rolls relate to the year 1978 whereas the impugned first information report was registered after inordinate delay of about 11 years. Thus the proceedings carried out on the basis of the impugned first information report would be in clear violation of constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when inordinate delay of about 11 years does not arise from the dfault of the petitioner, nor the same is occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason. Besides the allegations in the first information report against the petitioner are quite vague and do not constitute a prima facie offence punishable with any of the offences in respect of which the first information report has been registered.

On the delay point the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the Full Bench authority of Patna High Court in Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1990(3) RCR(Crl.) 302 (Patna) : 1986 Crl. L.J. 1771 wherein dealing with this aspect of the case, it was observed that the right of a speedy public trial is now an inalienable fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has further been ruled that a callous and inordinately prolonged delay of seven years or more (which does not arise from the default of the accused or is otherwise not occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason) in investigation and original trial for offence other than capital ones, plainly violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

To the similar effect are the Single Bench authorities of this Court in Amarjit Singh Dhingra, Executive Engineer v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Reports 193 and Amar Nath and others, v. The State of Punjab, 1988(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 410 as well as Adarsh Kumar Batra v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) RCR(Crl.) 147 (P&H)Criminal Misc. No. 7251M of 1989 decided by this Court on 29th Sept., 1989.

For the foregoing reasons, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned first information report and all the resultant proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioner are directed to be quashed, and this petition is accordingly allowed.