Gurpiar Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Petitioner, a Radiographer, was posted at the relevant time at Primary Health Centre, Talwandi Sabo. On the wall of the health centre with the black sketch pen, petitioner had put the following notice:

-Read, think and follow.

-Don''t go for private test. Those who refer you there get commission.

-Be aware of touts.

From : Gurpiar Singh Bhatti

Another line written on the wall was "get cheap medical test done at Government hospital". This notice annoyed doctors of the hospital. Senior Medical Officer Dr. Gurmail Singh Mauji submitted an application to the police that by putting abovesaid notice, accused has contravened the provisions of Punjab Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1997. On receipt of application case FIR No. 48 dated 20.05.2002 was registered at Police Station Talwandi, District Bathinda against the petitioner u/s 3 of the Punjab Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1997.

By filing the present petition, a prayer has been made that the impugned FIR be quashed.

Section 3 of the Act reads as under:

Penalty for defacement of property. - (1) Whoever defaces any property in public view by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material or by erecting staffs, banners or by pasting notices and writing slognas without the written permission of the owner of the property, except for the purpose of indicating the name and address of the owner or occupier of such property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a terms, which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

(2) Where by offence committed under Sub-section (1), is for the benefit of some other person or a company or other body corporate or an association of persons (whether incorporated or not), then such other person and every president, chairman, director, partner, manager, secretary, agent or any other officer or person concerned with the management thereof, as the case may be, shall, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent be deemed to be guilty of such offence.

It is stated that during the pendency of the petition, challan was submitted and the charge was also framed against the petitioner.

Defacement, as defined u/s 2(a) of the Act reads as under:

(a) "defacement" includes impairing or interfering with the appearance of beauty, damaging, disfiguring, spoiling or injuring in any other way whatsoever and the word ''deface'' shall be construed accordingly;

Admittedly, petitioner being Radiographer is an employee of the hospital. The duty assigned to him was to conduct X-Ray examination. Putting of a notice that people should get their X-Ray examinations done from the hospital will not amount to defacement of the property but to advance the object for which Government hospitals have established and facility of X-Ray has been provided to the poor people. A guidance to the public at large that X-Ray examination and other test are available in the hospital at lower rate than the market will not constitute offence of defacement of the hospital.

Section 3 of the Act prescribes maximum sentence of six months. The petitioner is to be tried in a summary manner. In the present case, FIR was registered on 20.05.2002. A period of more than seven years has already elapsed. Proceedings were stayed by this Court on 19.02.2004 when a Coordinate Bench had passed the following order:

Heard.

Allegation against the petitioner is that he, while being posted as Radiographer in the Hospital, made some writing on the Hospital wall suggesting that tests should be made from Government Hospitals and corruption should be checked.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that proceedings against the petitioner are on account of politics in the Hospital. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for quashing.

In the circumstances of the case, proceedings in the trial court are stayed.

Cr.M. is disposed of.

In Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 802, Hon''ble Apex Court had acknowledged and recognized right of the accused to speedy trial. In Para 15 of the judgment it has been observed as under:

It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time frame for conclusion of trial.

In Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 890 it was held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that "in appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions."

Taking into consideration the alleged act of the petitioner and the fact that for a defacement of the property only maximum sentence of six months is prescribed, a period of more than 8 years is going to elapse, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings will serve no useful purpose, and pursuance of FIR will be nothing but an abuse of process of law as it will also infringe right of the accused to the speedy trial.

Accordingly, present petition is accepted and the FIR is quashed.