Shahid Anis vs State of Haryana

A.L. Bahri, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings initiated on first information report No. 350 dated June 9, 1980, registered at Police Station, Ambala Cantt, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections,161, 218 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered against the petitioner Shahid Anis. He was working as Administrative Officer with the Punjab Waqf Board. Shri Akhtar Hussain was the acting Secretary. In his place, the petitioner was appointed as acting Secretary vide resolution of the Board dated July 23, 1979. Shri Rahim Khan, one of the members of the Board, who voted against the petitioner being appointed as acting Secretary lodged the aforesaid report with the Police. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated November 17, 198O for commission of certain acts of irregularities etc. Smt. Shamsad Dar was the Chairman of the Board at that time. Subsequently the petitioner was again promoted as acting Secretary of the Board on May 9, 1981. The petitioner was also authorised to operate the accounts of the Board jointly. with the Chairman. In December, 1981 the Board was suspended by the Central Government. Shri Akhtar Hussain was appointed as Administrator of the Board and in June, 1982, Shri Rahim Khan was appointed as Minister in the State of Haryana. On coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail in the High Court vide Criminal Misc. No. 3859M of 1987. On August 20, 1982 bail was granted. However, the same was cancelled on August 30, 1982. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court. He was directed to approach the High Court again for bail. The petitioner was allowed interim bail on January 12, 1983 by the High Court in Criminal Misc. No 160M of 1983. One of the allegations against the petitioner was that he had misused his powers by leasing out Waqf land for a long period without authority. A charge sheet was also served upon the petitioner on December 23, 1980 (copies Annexures P4 and P5). The statement of allegations is Annexure P6. The documents on which reliance was placed are mentioned in Annexure P7. A suitable reply was furnished to the chargesheet and the petitioner was absolved of the charge framed on May 9, 1981 by the Chairman of the Waqf Board (copy Annexure P 8). By that time, the petitioner had no knowledge of registration of the case as aforesaid. It was thereafter that he moved for the anticipatory bail. As already stated above, the High Court passed order allowing bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on January 12, 1983. This order was addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Ambala Cantt as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambala. In spite of that, the petitioner was, however, declared a proclaimed offender on January 21, 1983 vide order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt (copy Annexure P10). Shri Yamin son of Mohd. Yusuf was cited as coaccused in the case registered against the petitioner. He was tried by the Special Judge and was acquitted on January 28, 1988. Copy of the judgment is Annexure P10. There were 8 witnesses cited in the report submitted to the Court whose names are given in paragraph 1 of the petition. These witnesses appeared against Yamin and copies of their statements are Annexures P13 to P20, A challan was presented in Court on September 24, 1985 and as already stated above Shri Yamin was tried. The grounds on which the petition has been filed are mainly to the following effect :

(i) When the coaccused Yamin has already been acquitted there remains no allegation of suspicion against the petitioner. There was thus no conspiracy on the part of the petitioner with Yamin, who was absolved of the charges. The witnesses who appeared in Court did not support the case of the prosecution. No useful purpose would be served by trying the petitioner when coaccused Yamin had been acquitted.

(iii) The trial of the petitioner would be on the stale allegations. The said case was registered as for back as in 1980.

(iv) Since the petitioner was on bail as allowed by the High Court, he was wrongly declared a proclaimed offender.

(v) When the Waqf Board had withdrawn the charges against the petitioner vide order Annexure P8, there was no justification to continue with the criminal case.

(vi) No sanction to prosecute the petitioner was obtained by the State.

(vii) If it was found that the lease was granted by the petitioner for a longer period, the same could be cancelled by the Punjab Waqf Board. However, the said Board has not so far cancelled the same,

I have given due consideration to the aforesaid grounds and the arguments addressed by the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel representing the State.

Taking up the first two points together, I find that on these grounds the first information report lodged against the petitioner cannot be quashed. The mere fact that coaccused Yamin has been acquitted or that some of the witnesses produced against him resiled and did not support prosecution case, per se is no ground for not proceeding against the present petitioner. Presuming for the sake of agreement that evidence regarding conspiracy is weak it will not show that for the substantive offence, the petitioner cannot be tried.

It has been argued that report tinder Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, was not presented within three years from the date of registration of the case and on the stale allegations the should not be tried. This contention cannot be accepted 468 of Cr.P.C. prescribes limitation maximum of three years or filing reports under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in Courts in respect of offences providing punishment less than three years. On behalf Of the respondent State it was argued that the petitioner absconded and was not available for trial. This assertion was sought to be refuted on the ground that just before he was declared proclaimed offender, he had approached the High Court and obtained an order of bail. In my view no further comments in this respect should be made as limitation of three years for filing of report in Court, is not attracted to the case in hand. Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides sentence of seven years and the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. can be presented any time it is immaterial whether the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by the trial Court and the case proceeded only against the coaccused. Thus, contentions (iii) and (iv), referred to above, have no force.

No doubt the Waqf Board afterwards dropped the departmental proceedings against the petitioner who was reinstated. The law does not prohibit simultaneous proceeding i.e. criminal proceedings and department proceedings against the defaulting official. The dropping of one of .them does not debar action on the other. Thus, this argument has no merit.

Another argument pressed was that no sanction to prosecute the petitioner was obtained by the State. This contention again cannot be accepted. The State can produce sanction, if required under the law, even during the trial. At the most the trial can be postponed for want of sanction.

Finally it was argued that since the Waqf Board has not cancelled the lease which was granted at the instance of the petitioner for 99 years, the petitioner is absolved of the responsibility. I am afraid this contention again cannot be accepted. The question before the criminal Court would be whether he allowed 99 years lease on receipt of illegal gratification. This contention is also devoid of merits.

For the reasons recorded above finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.