Nar Bahadur vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of First Information Report No. 366 dated 8th June, 1985 registered against the petitioner for Commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and subsequent proceedings thereto.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of this case, are, that the petitioner Nar Bahadur while posted as peon with Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is said to have committed embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 19,055.65 after committing forgery in conspiracy with Shri D.D. Jain, ExCashier of the said Corporation. The said embezzlement relates to the years April, 1983 to December, 1984.

It was vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner who was a peon had nothing to do with the maintenance of accounts; that he never remained posted at Chandigarh during the relevant period, that the report of the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh does not positively involve the petitioner, and that the challan was presented in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh after a period of 3 years and 5 months and no cognizance can be taken against the petitioner.

The petitioner no doubt was working as a peon and had nothing to do with the maintenance of accounts, the fact remains that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he in conspiracy with Shri D.D. Jain, ExCashier of the Corporation embezzled amount to the tune of Rs. 11,346,65 by receiving over payments against forged bills. The petitioner is said to have received arrears and salary for the same month during the said period more than once. The over payments drawn by the petitioner ranged from 3 to 6 times the salary of the arrears, which, the petitioner was legally entitled to withdraw. The report of the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, concerning the disputed documents does not in any manner exonerate the petitioner in either committing forgery, or, in getting over payments referred to above.

In these circumstances mere fact that the petitioner was not posted at Chandigarh, or, has nothing much to do as far as maintenance of accounts of the Corporation is concerned would not prima facie absolve the petitioner from his criminal liability.

It is true that there is delay of 3 years and 5 months in presenting the challan against the petitioner in the instant case, the fact remains that besides other offences challan has also been presented in respect of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. All these offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years. There is no legal bar for taking cognizance in respect of the said offences against the petitioner as contemplated under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Thus from the material on the record no prima facie case for quashment of the impugned First Information Report or consequent proceedings taken against the petitioner has been made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed.