AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Aggarwal, J.—Heard. This is petition against order dated 20.11.2002 passed by the Court of JMIC, Karnal whereby the petitioner-accused had been charged for the offence under Sections 409/420/467/468/471 IPC in case FIR No. 29 dated 31.12.1997.
As per allegations, petitioner was a secretary of Karnal Improvement Trust. He had been entrusted certain money in the year 1975 and he misappropriated the same. He also committed certain other offences regarding some agreements in the year 1982. However, FIR was registered in the year 1997.
Petitioner is stated to have retired in the year 1995.
Counsel for the petitioner had argued that as per Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1962, proceedings could start only within a period of four years from the date of occurrence whereas FIR was registered in the year 1997.
On behalf of the respondent, reply has been filed admitting that the recovery proceedings could not start after four years of the occurrence.
On behalf of the State, it is argued that the petitioner had committed offences. The enquiry had been held and thereafter the case was registered.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Satnam Singh Sahni v. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Cri) 733, in which a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court had also been relied and argues that FIR registered after four years of the occurrence should be quashed.
Here is a case where FIR was registered in the year 1997 for an occurrence having been occurred in the year 1982. Petitioner had already retired from service. No recovery can be effected from him. It is just pursuing the stale matter now as observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989 (1) RCR (Cri.) 139 (SC).
Under these circumstances, petition is accepted. Order dated 20.11.2002 passed by the Court of JMIC, Karnal is set aside.
This is an application for correction in order dated 30.5.2006 of this Court made in Crl. Revision No. 2020 of 2005.
In para No. 3 of the order, it had been mentioned that "as per Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1962, proceedings could start only within a period of four years from the date of occurrence whereas FIR was registered in the year 1997". It is pointed out that in fact it was Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement Surcharge Rules, 1961.
After hearing counsel for the applicant and going through the order dated 30.5.2006, it would come out that it was Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement Surcharge Rules, 1961.
In the circumstances, in para No. 3 of the order, instead of Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1962, it shall be read as Rule 4 of the Punjab Town Improvement Surcharge Rules, 1961.
Disposed of.