Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 983 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh Sahni v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-25

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Inspector Satya Nand of Vigilance Bureau Flying Squad, Patiala lodged an FIR against the present petitioner and others on 10.1.1989 alleging therein that the petitioner along with Harbhajan Singh, J.E., Paramjit Singh, S.D.C. and Harbhajan Singh, Clerk working in Sub Division, PWD Patiala in connivance with each other prepared forged vouchers of stocks. As per the FIR the petitioner along with the aforementioned persons embezzled an amount of Rs. 17383.20 between April 1984 to November 1984. It has also been alleged that there was no work authority with the petitioner and they also lost five vouchers. 2. Mr. Chopra, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the offence is alleged to have been committed between April 1984 to November 1984, whereas the FIR in the present case is of 10.1.1989. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is a delay of more than four years and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed on this ground. Learned counsel further contends that in the present case, the petitioner is only the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Mr. Chopra relies on the judgment of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 10041-M of 1990 "B.B. Aggarwal v. State of Punjab" decided on 3.12.1990 wherein the FIR was quashed as there was a considerable delay of three years in lodging the FIR. 3. Learned State counsel submits that a regular enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department and only after a finding was arrived at during enquiry to the effect that the petitioner along with other persons had embezzled the amount, the present FIR was registered. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the embezzlement is alleged to have taken place between April 1984 to November, 1984. The alleged embezzlement came to the knowledge of the State in the year 1986. Even thereafter, there is a delay of four years. Hence, I find that there is a delay of four years in lodging the FIR. In Criminal Misc. 2829-M of 1989 "Balraj Singh v. State of Punjab" there was a delay of about three years and on this ground, the FIR was quashed by this Court. Moreover, now a period of more than 18 years has elapsed since the commission of the offence. In Criminal Misc. 2829-M of 1989 "Balraj Singh v. State of Punjab" there was a delay of about three years and on this ground, the FIR was quashed by this Court. Moreover, now a period of more than 18 years has elapsed since the commission of the offence. Obviously, after a gap of so many years, the witnesses will not remember the entire incident and the manner in which the embezzlement had taken place. It was incumbent upon the prosecution that the trial of the case should be got conducted speedily. A lot of time has been lost in investigating the case. 5. Learned State counsel has relied upon Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran, AIR 1990 S.C. 1266 to contend that delay is not a ground for quashing the FIR. 6. The right of speedy trial was recognised by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989(1) RCR(Crl.) 139 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 558 wherein their lordships observed 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 regard 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 21st October, 1982 when the respondent retired from service. Now in 1988 it would be pursuing a stale 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 view of the above observations of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath (supra) and in view of the fact that more than 18 years have elapsed since the commission of the offence, I accept the revision and quash FIR No. 2 dated 10.1.1989 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. All consequent proceedings undertaken in pursuance to the lodging of the FIR are also hereby quashed qua the petitioner only. Revsion allowed.