AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.L. Singhal, J.
Shri M.S. Nagra now Executive Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as Board) through this Crl. Misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of complaint/FIR No. 196 dated 30.9.1976 Annexure P1 and all consequential proceedings arising in relation thereto.
Facts which have given riseto this petition are as follows : "Petitioner was posted as S.D.O. Rural Electrification Mansa during the period 15.5.1975 to 23.8.1976. During that period, the electrification of the rural area was undertaken. In the electrification scheme, tubewells were being installed at various places as per the plans submitted by residents of villages. His job was to go through the test report submitted by an applicant before releasing the tubewell connection. After making sure that the test report was genuine, he was to issue Service Connection JUDGMENT (SCO) to the Line Superintendent for the release of the connection. Line Superintendent and Lineman were to release the connection as per seniority of the applicants. During his posting as S.D.O., Rural Electrification, Mansa all the SCOs were issued by him according to the seniority and no connection was given out of turn. In July 1976, the Vigilance Department of the Board carried out general checking of the tubewell connections released by the S.D.O.s of the various districts to find out if the S.D.Os had released electric connections to the tubewells out of turn and in disregard of seniority of the applicants. In Mansa area, checking of electric connections was done by the Vigilance Department of the Board from 22.7.1976 to 24.7.1976 and thereafter from 3.8.1976 to 11.8.1976. Vigilance Inspectors S/Shri Jaswant Singh Jeji and Kulwant Singh gave report that during checking, some persons had alleged that he (petitioner) had taken illegal gratification before releasing the tubewell connections. In their report, they named those persons who had alleged that he had accepted illegal gratification before the release of tubewell connections. In pursuance to that report, FIR No. 196 dated 30.9.1976 was registered at PS Sardulgarh (Annexure P1) against him and some other persons i.e. the Line Superintendent and the Lineman that they had accepted illegal gratification for the release of tubewell connections. In consequence of the registration of FIR No. 196 (ibid), he was suspended by the Board on 16.8.1976. He was reinstated on 28.3.1977 with continuity of service. According to him, he was reinstated because the department felt convinced that no irregularity had been committed by him in the release of tubewell connections. He was allowed anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 1.12.1976 Annexure P2. In the year 1981, he was asked by CIA branch, who was investigating this matter, to submit his statement visavis the allegations made against him. He submitted the statement refuting all the allegations mentioned in the FIR. It is further averred that the FIR was founded on false statements. said to have been made before the aforesaid Vigilance Inspectors as for instance, Gurcharan Singh son of Balwant Singh had allegedly stated before the CIA Inspectors that he had paid bribe of Rs. 1600/ for released of tubewell connection 56 days before the release of tubewell connection. Tubewell connection was release to him on 26.11.1976 while he (petitioner) had relinquished the charge on 23.8.1976 and in the month of November 1976, Shri R.K. Garg was S.D.O. R.E., Mansa. He produced affidavits of about 5 persons who figured in the FIR swearing money had ever been demanded by him or was ever accepted by him for the release to tubewell connections. He submitted in his statement to the CIA that he was innocent and the FIR is false. Annexure P3 is the reply submitted by him to CIA. After he had submitted his reply, nothing was heard by him and he continued to discharge his duties in the Board. CIA sent a list of persons who had allegedly given him bribe to the Board asking them whether the connections had been released in order of seniority or not. S.D.O., R.E., Mansa after going through the record replied to Shri Karam Singh, Inspector CIA, who was investigating the case that the connections had been released as per seniority list and there was no irregularity committed by him so far as the connections were concerned. S.DO.''s reply to the Inspector, CIA, Mansa is Annexure P4. No disciplinary action was initiated against him by the Board obviously because the Board was convinced that he was innocent and had committed no irregularity in the release of tubewell connections. No chargesheet was issued to him. No adverse remark was conveyed to him. After a gap of 17 years of the registration of the FIR, putting in of challan is being contemplated by the State of Punjab. Lineman who figures in the FIR has received a letter that challan is going to put in court and he should report at P.S. Sardulgarh on 29.4.1993. Action of the respondent State in presenting the challan after a period of 17 years is arbitrary and illegal. Inasmuch as FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay and laches. FIR was registered in September, 1976 for the incidents which took place in the year 197576. State has failed to put in the challan. Investigation has been very tardy. No investigation, however lengthy, can brook 17 years delay. Claiming speedy trial is constitutional right of a person granted to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the FIR, there is mention of the statements of Gurcharan Singh etc. which are highly vague specifying no time or place where they had allegedly given bribe to the petitioner for release of tubewell connections to them. Some of them were not given any tubewell connections at all. As for instance, no tubewell connection was given to Kulwant Singh and still his name finds mention in the FIR as having paid Rs. 500/ for release of tubewell connection to him. Kulwant Singh has sworn an affidavit that no illegal gratification was ever paid by him to the petitioner. Punjab State Electricity Board has written to the CIA that the connections released by him were totally in the order of seniority and no irregularity was committed by him with regard to the release of connections. His duty was only to give SCOs and it was the duty of the Line Superintendent and Lineman to release the connections. FIR registered on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Inspectors is not sustainable. Statements of Gurcharan Singh etc. were recorded after 4 to 9 months of the release of tubewell connection. If they had given him any bribe for the release of tubewell connections to them, they would have immediately complained against him to the Board or the Vigilance Department that he had taken bribe from them for release of tubewell connections and action should be taken against him. No value should be attached to the statements made by them after a gap of 4 to 9 months of the release of tubewell connections and that too to the Vigilance Inspector. Inordinate delay has caused him prejudice. Some of the persons whose names find mention in the FIR, as having given him gratification, are no more as for instance Shri Jivan Singh died prior to the year 1981 and Karam Chand died in the year 1980. Some others whose names final mention in the FIR, are not residing in the village. Incident is 17 years old and it is very difficult for him to remember the incident exactly. If challan is put in and he is put up on trial, that will work prejudice to him and eventually injustice to him.
RespondentState of Punjab opposed this petition urging that the petitioner used to issue connections by ignoring seniorities as per the detailed report of S/Shri J.S. Jeji and Kulwant Singh, Vigilance Inspectors of the Board. After the completion of the investigation, enormous letters was written to the Chairman of the Board for granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Sanction was received late. There was no delay in the registration of the FIR. As initial inquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer, R.E.C., Division, PSEB, Bhatinda and after the completion of the inquiry and finding the allegations to be true, the papers were sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda for registration of case against the petitioner and after obtaining legal opinion, the case was registered. Delay in presenting the challan, took place because of non cooperation of the petitioner and his co accused as well as the concerned department.
In my opinion, it will be flogging the dead horse if the accused, is tried on this FIR as there is no corroboration to the statement of the one who allegedly gave bribe money to the accused. After a lapse of 17 years, the accused will be put to serious handicap so far as their crossexamination is concerned. In State of Punjab Appellant v. Kailash Nath, Respondent, AIR 1989 S.C. 558, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that it is always open to quash a prosecution on the ground of unexplained inostensible delay in investigation, and prosecution on the facts of a given case, because right to claim of speedy trial is inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution of India". A criminal case should not keep hanging on the head of the accused for 20 to 25 years. Ours is a democratic society. An accused has a right to a speedy trial. This right will be rendered nugatory if challan is put in after 17 years of the registration of the case. In my opinion, it would not be possible for a court to convict the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of the giver of a bribe. Giver of the bribe is an accomplice. He requires to be corroborated in material particulars, if his testimony is to be accepted.
For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that it would be a futile exercise so far as the trial of the accused on this FIR goes after a lapse of 17 years of its registration. So, this Criminal Miscellaneous petition is accepted and this FIR is quashed together with every proceedings taken in consequence thereof.