Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 475 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-04-30

V.M.JAIN

body2001
JudgmentJudgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 13.1.1999, passed by the CJM, ordering framing of charges against the accused-petitioner and also seeking quashment of the order dated 6.12.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision petition of the accused-petitioner and upholding the order dated 13.1.1999, passed by the CJM. 2. Annexure P4 is the copy of the FIR 114 dated 13.12.1995, registered at Police Station, City Faridkot under Sections 409/420/120-B, IPC. against the accused-petitioner, at the instance of Director, Social Security, Punjab, Chandigarh. In the said FIR, it was alleged that the accused-petitioner, Ranjit Singh Puri retired District Social Welfare Officer, had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,51,413.63 from the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Faridkot, and that the government had taken a decision that an FIR be got registered against him and his co-accused, Gurjinder Singh Modi, Accountant. It was alleged that the said mis-appropriation had taken place in July, 1991. After the completion of investigation by the Police, the final report was submitted in the Court. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 13.1.1999 ordered the framing of charges under Sections 409/420/467/120-B, IPC, against the accused-petitioner and his co- accused. Aggrieved against the said order, passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused-petitioner and his co-accused, Gurjinder Singh Modi filed separate revision petitions before the Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 6.12.2000 dismissed both the revision petitions and upheld the order dated 13.11.1999, passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Court below, the accused-petitioner, Ranjit Singh, has filed the present petition in this Court, seeking quashment of the orders passed by the Courts below. 3. In the present petition, it has been alleged by the accused-petitioner that he was working as District Social Welfare Officer, Mansa, and that he retired on 31.10.1994. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted before me that in view of Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume II, the accused-petitioner could not be prosecuted after retirement, if 4 years had already elapsed between the alleged act and the lodging of the FIR. 4. However, I find no force in this contention of learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. 4. However, I find no force in this contention of learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. In sub-Rule 3 of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume II, it has been provided as under :- "No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution." In the explanation to the Sub-Rule, it has been provided that a judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of the Police Officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. In the present case, the accused-petitioner is alleged to have committed the crime in July, 1991. The FIR is dated 13.12.1995. As per the allegations, made by the petitioner, in the present petition, he retired from service on 31.10.1994. 5. The aforesaid Rule 2.2 came up for consideration before their Lordships of Supreme Court, in the case reported as State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989(1) SLR 12 : 1989(1) RCR(Crl.) 139. It was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court as under :- "Even on a plain reading of Rule 2.2, it is apparent that the intention of framing the said rule was not to grant immunity from prosecution to a government servant, if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. As seen above, Rule 2.2 in Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Service Rules which deals with ordinary pension. There can be no manner of doubt that making provisions with regard to pension falls within the perview of "conditions of Service". The embargo on prosecution spelt out by the High Court is not to be found in the main rule 2.2 but in the third proviso to the said rule. It is the third proviso which enjoins that no judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action while arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. The scope of a proviso is well settled. The scope of a proviso is well settled. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx In view of what has been said above and keeping in mind the scope of rule making power under Article 309 of the Constitution, the third proviso to Rule 2.2 cannot be interpreted as laying down an absolute or general embargo on prosecution of a Government servant if the conditions stated therein are satisfied. Even if on first impression the said rule may appear to be placing such an embargo, it has to be interpreted by taking recourse to the well settled rule of reading down a provision so as to bring it within the framework of its source of power without of course, frustrating the purpose for which such provision was made. Clause (b) of Rule 2.2 which can be called the substantive clause reserves to the Government the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if, in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement." 6. After discussing the various authorities, it was further held by their Lordships of Supreme Court as under :- "Even if the soundness of the principle that there should be speedy trial, may not be disputed, the said principle cannot be invoked by the respondents in support of their interpretation of the 3rd proviso to clause "b" of Rule 2.2 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, whose purpose, as already indicated above, is not to place an embargo on prosecution." 7. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, while interpreting Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume II, in my opinion, the FIR in the present case, cannot be quashed only on the ground that the same was lodged after the expiry of 4 years of the date on which the cause of action had arisen in this case. On the basis of the allegations, made in the FIR, and the evidence collected by the prosecution, during investigation, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in ordering the framing of various charges against the accused-petitioner and no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Magistrate or the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition of the accused-petitioner. For the reasons recorded, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.