Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1305 (PNJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2005-12-20

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is petition against order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Narnaul whereby the present petitioner Suresh Kumar and others had been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 420/409/467/468/471/120-B IPC. 2. The Charges for the offence under Sections 420 read with Section 120 IPC, 409 read with Section 120 IPC, 467 read with Section 120 IPC, 468 read with Section 120 IPC, 471 read with Section 120 IPC and 13(1) C and (1) D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read as under : That in between the year 1995-2000 you above named accused (Inder Singh) being Sarpanch of village Dongli in connivance with your co-accused Suresh Kumar Gram Sachiv and Kaushal Ram BDPO by dishonestly inducing the Government to deliver the grant to himself for making some work in village Dongli and thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC which is within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, in the same tenure, you above named accused being a public servants were entrusted with amount of Rs. 59827.89 in your capacity of a public servant that you committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409 read with Section 120-B IPC which is within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly, in the same tenure, you above named accused (Inder Singh) in connivance with your co-accused prepared false resolution of Panchayat concealing the true facts and thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 read with Section 120-B IPC and which is within the cognizance of this Court. Fourthly, in the same tenure, you accused (Inder Singh) in connivance with your co-accused forged documents i.e. resolution and M.B. Intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 120-B IPC and which is within the cognizance of this court. Fifthly, in the same tenure, you accused (Inder Singh) in connivance with your co-accused fraudulently/dishonestly used as genuine documents i.e. resolution and M.B. which you know at that time when you used it, a forged document and thus thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and which is within the cognizance of this Court." 3. For the offence under Sections 467/120-B IPC, 409/120-B IPC, 468/120-B IPC and 471/120-B IPC, the words mentioned are "in the same tenure". Then there is charge for the offence under Section 13(1) C and (1)D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused Inder Singh that they had accepted Rs. 59827.89 an illegal gratification. 4. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that as per Section 212 Cr.P.C. the charge has to contain the particulars of time and place of the alleged offence and that first and last of the dates cannot exceed one year. It was argued that in this case, the period mentioned is of five years i.e. 1995 to 2000. Section 212 Cr.P.C. reads as under :- 212. Particulars as to time, place and person. - (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other moveable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, described the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section 219 : Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year." 5. From the perusal of the charge-sheet framed in terms of order dated 4.1.2005 by Special Judge, Narnaul, it would come out that the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120 IPC, 409 read with Section 120 ICP, 467 read with Section 120 IPC, 468 read with Section 120, IPC, 471 read with Section 120 IPC are for a period in between 1995 and 2000. As per Section 212 Cr.P.C., it could not be done even in case of misappropriation, the time included could not exceed one year between the first and last of such dates. 6. As per Section 212 Cr.P.C., it could not be done even in case of misappropriation, the time included could not exceed one year between the first and last of such dates. 6. As such, charges as framed vide order dated 4.1.2005 by Special Judge, Narnaul are set aside. Let the prosecution to specify and present separate challenge for a period not exceeding one year from the first and last of the dates of the offence committed. 7. Petition is accordingly accepted.