Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 501 (PNJ)

Prithvi Nath Parashar v. State Of Punjab

2000-05-09

T.H.B.CHALAPATHI

body2000
Judgment T.H.B.Chalapathi, J. 1. This application is filed to quash the FIR No. 58 of P.S. Tarn Taran, District Amritsar dated 17/18.3.1978 and consequential proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran. 2. The case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 IPC on the following averments :- That a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to the petitioner during the year 1975-76 in his capacity as Chairman of Bharat New Yuvak Samaj, Punjab which has been registered under the registration of Societies Act, 1960 as grant in-aid for starting projects in the Border areas. Again another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid during the same year for bringing out a book on the lives of brave women who contributed during freedom struggle as a part of the programme of celebration of International Women Year. The guarantee failed to furnish the utilisation certificate within the stipulated period of one year in respect of the grant of Rs. 40,000/- In regard to the grant of Rs. 25,000/- the petitioner neither brought out the book nor any accounts had been rendered. Thereupon a notice was served on the petitioner on 1-9-1977 asking him to refund the amount of both these grants. On 16-11-1977 the petitioner furnished a utilisation certificate in regard to Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- in respect of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- given to him. The petitioner was also asked to produce the accounts on 16-12-1977, but he failed to submit the accounts. Again on 24-12-1977, Joint Director, Social Welfare and Accounts Officer of the Department were sent to Hoshiarpur to inspect the accounts, but the petitioner stated that he would produce the accounts within a fortnight at Chandigarh, but he did not produce the accounts. Therefore, the petitioner misappropriated the amounts given to him and was, therefore, liable for punishment under Section 406 I.P.C. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 58 of P.S. Tarn Taran was registered. 3. By an order dated 4-1-1988, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran ordered the charges under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. to be amended on the ground that there were sufficient grounds to presume that the accused committed an offence under Section 409 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Criminal Misc. 4120-M of 1988. 4. By an order dated 4-1-1988, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran ordered the charges under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. to be amended on the ground that there were sufficient grounds to presume that the accused committed an offence under Section 409 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the Criminal Misc. 4120-M of 1988. 4. This Court by an order dated 16-3-1989 dismissed the said application and directed the trial Court to complete the trial expeditiously. 5. During the pendency of the application in Criminal Misc. No. 4120-M of 1988 by an order dated 19-9-1988, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran passed the following order :- "In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the accused are guilty and they ought to receive punishment different in kind or more severe than I am empowered to inflict since huge amount is involved in this case. As such the file of this case is forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for 24-9-1988 as provided under Section 325(1) Cr.P.C. Accused were directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 24-9-88 at 10-00 A.M. sharp". 6. Earlier also against the order of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran dated 16-1-1988 whereby he declined the request of the prosecution for recalling the witnesses, the petitioner filed the revision petition which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide his order dated 5-5-88 with a direction to the Trial Magistrate to re-examine the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses. 7. Against the order dated 19-9-1988 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran the petitioner went in revision to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar who dismissed the same by an order dated 13-3-1991 and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed this petition. 8. By an order dated 8-8-1991, this Court while ordering issuance of notice to the respondents directed that final judgment shall not be passed. 9. When the learned Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. No. 4120-M of 1988 for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tarn Taran. 9. When the learned Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. No. 4120-M of 1988 for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tarn Taran. That application was dismissed by this Court as stated above. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to seek quashing of the FIR again. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 13-3-1991 cannot be said to be illegal since the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said order dated 13-3-1991. 10. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tarn Taran dated 19-9-1988 referred the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325(1) of Cr.P.C. as he was of the opinion that more severe punishment is required than the sentence which he could not have imposed. The said order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by his order dated 13-3-1991. 11. After going through both the orders, I do not find any illegality in the said orders. It is always open to the Magistrate to refer the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate when he is of the opinion that he cannot impose the adequate sentence. Further the petitioner also cannot take advantage of the pendency of the criminal petition for over two decades since he has been filing the petition after petition and approaching this Court for quashing of the proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the entire evidence has been recorded and this Court by an order dated 8-8-1991 stayed the passing of the final judgment only. The only thing that has been left for the Court is now to impose the appropriate sentence. While imposing the sentence, the trial Court may take into account the time lapse. 12. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any ground to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. I direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pronounce the judgment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.