Balbir Singh @ Balbir Singh Bedi vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

FIR No. 25 dated 12.4.1996 has been registered at Police Station Vigilance, Patiala under Section 13(i)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The material allegations in the FIR are as follows :

Balbir SinghCommandant (Petitioner herein), Varinder Singh Walia, Platoon Commander, Surjit Singh, Company Commander and Gurbachan Singh, Company commander of Punjab Home Guards District Fatehgarh Sahib were on duty during 1992 as such. Salary of the volunteers was drawn from the Government Treasury. If the volunteers performed duty with lathi, their salary had to be drawn at Rs. 35/ per day and if they performed duty with rifle, their salary had to be drawn at Rs. 40/ per day. The salary of Home Guard Volunteer Surjit Masih was drawn for 30 days (for September 1992) amounting to Rs. 1,050/ whereas actually a sum of Rs. 850/ was required to be drawn for 24 days at the rate of Rs. 35/ per day. The excess salary drawn for six days comes to Rs. 210/. One Sukhwinder Singh was paid Rs. 1,054/ as salary for 30 days at the rate of Rs. 35/ per day whereas no police station had sent any verification about his having discharged the duty with lathi. In the month of December, 1992 and during the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, the salary of all the Home Guard Volunteers was drawn at Rs. 40/ per day. It was found from the register maintained by the Home Guard office that the volunteers had not even fired and inspite of this, they were paid Rs. 40/ per day for performing their duties with rifles. In this way, these Company Commanders embezzled this amount by preparing the false verification and drawing Rs. 40/ per day instead of Rs. 35/ per day. The abovementioned officials have not maintained the record properly and have ignored the departmental rules and instructions by showing the salary of the volunteers wrongly, and have embezzled the amount. These officials have caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/ by wrongly drawing the salary of the Home Guard Volunteers intentionally and with mala fide intention and have not maintained the records properly.

The petitioner Balbir Singh alias Balbir Singh Bedi has come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner claims that the Home Guard Volunteers remained under the general control and supervision of the respective Platoon/Company Commanders and the agencies where the Home Guard performed their duty, used to send a verification certificate to the respective platoon/company commanders of the volunteers showing the number of days worked by the volunteers and also for how many days they performed their duty with lathi or with rifle. According to the petitioner, the platoon/company commanders used to prepare the bills for claiming the daily allowances of the volunteers from the Government on the basis of the said certificates and he (petitioner) only used to countersign these bills after due verification with the help of the certificates. The petitioner also claims that he being the Incharge of the Department in the district, was not directly dealing with the drawing of and/or disbursement of the daily allowances and that there is nothing to support the allegation of forgery as well as the embezzlement of the money against him. The petitioner also urges that the FIR does not speak of wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of any offence having been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that whatever amount was drawn in accordance with the certificate from the agencies, was paid to the volunteers by the Unit Incharge. The allegation that Surjit Masih had performed duty for 24 days but was paid daily allowance for 30 days at Rs. 35/ per day during September, 1992, is groundless. According to the petitioner, he performed the duty for 30 days with lathi and a certificate to this effect was issued by the concerned police station. According to the petitioner, the registration of the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of Court since no offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner further claims that the allegations of embezzlement against him are vague, absurd and inherently improbable and at the worst, he could be guilty of dereliction of duty but not of any offence under the IPC.

The respondentState filed a reply stating therein that the petitioner being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer; is liable for the wrong and false disbursement of the alleged payment of salary and that specific allegations have been made in the FIR which make out the offences. According to the State, the FIR clearly mentions that the accused including the petitioner have caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/ by wrongly drawing the salary of the Home Guards intentionally. The other allegations of the petitioner on merits have been suitably replied/controverted.

I have learned counsel for both the sides.

From the allegations in the FIR extracted above, it is seen that according to the State, the petitioner who is the Commandant and the Commanders working under him have been responsible for causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/. In the FIR, it has been alleged that with regard to the Home Guard VolunteerSurjit Masih, a sum of Rs. 1,050/ was drawn as salary for 30 days whereas at the rate of Rs. 35/ per day for 24 days, only a sum of Rs. 850/ ought to have been drawn. It has further been alleged that Sukhwinder Singh was paid Rs. 1,054/ whereas no police station had sent any verification regarding the factum of his discharging duty with lathi. The FIR further alleges that during December, 1992 and during 1993, 1994 and 1995, the salary for all the Home Guards has been drawn at Rs. 40/ per day as if they had performed duty with rifles, but the registers maintained by the office of the Home Guards showed that they had not used the rifle and, therefore, the Company Commanders have embezzled this amount by preparing false verification and drawing Rs. 40/ per day instead of Rs. 35/ per day. It has further been alleged that the above mentioned officials have not maintained proper records and have embezzled the amount and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000/ to the Government by wrongfully drawing the salary. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not directly responsible for drawing and disbursement of the salary. According to him, the Platoon/Company Commanders prepared the bill claiming the daily allowances and that he (petitioner) only countersigned the bills after due verification with the help of the certificate issued by the agencies and, therefore, if at all, he can only be guilty of dereliction of duty for not checking the certificates, but cannot be guilty of the offences alleged. But, as learned counsel for the State rightly contends that the First Information Report shows that a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/ has been embezzled. The FIR also alleges that the bills have been drawn for excess amount by showing that the Home Guard Volunteers had performed duty with rifles whereas the register showed that they had not used the rifles at all. The FIR also alleges that the officials named in the FIR have embezzled the amount by wrongly claiming this amount. The matter is still at the stage of investigation and this Court cannot, at this stage, critically analyse the rival contentions put forward by the petitioner and the State and hold that the case of the State is not true. The extent of the involvement of the petitioner has to be ascertained by investigation, though the contention of the petitioner is that he only countersigned the bills. But, admittedly, he had the duty to check before countersigning. In such circumstances, it will be too early to say that the petitioner has not committed any offence. As pointed out already, the FIR shows that the excess money had been drawn by falsification of records and it is alleged that Rs. 2,10,000/ has been embezzled by the officials. Even if the petitioner is not the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, he had to countersign the bills after checking the records. When the investigation is on, it is not proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondentState is supported by the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar AIR 1992 SC 1930, State of Bihar v. K.J.D. Singh, 1994(2) RCR 37, Krishna Wanti v. State of Punjab, 1994(3) RCR 593.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR 75. But that was a case where the judgment was rendered after the trial and, therefore, cannot have any application to the facts of the present case where quashing of the FIR itself is prayed for. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Prem Singh, 1994(2) RCR 725 where this Court, on an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused, agreed with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, this decision also will not be of any help to the petitioner. The decision in Ishar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR 162 also will be of no avail to the petitioner since this Court on an examination of the FIR came to the conclusion that no offence was disclosed. But this Court also held that normally the Court will not interfere in the investigation of the offence.

In the circumstances of the case, I find that this is not a fit case where the FIR against the petitioner and the further proceedings should be quashed. Therefore, this petition has to fail.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.