Vidya Bhushan Sharda and ors. vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Vidya Bhushan Sharda, Retired Tehsildar, Ram Parkash Sehgal Naib Tehsildar and Chaman Lal, Patwari by means this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of FIR No. 27 dated March 2, 1988 registered at police station Industrial Area, Ludhiana.

Brief facts on which the prosecution of the petitioners had been launched may be enumerated :

On August 1, 1984, auction of certain plots was to be held. That auction was however, postponed to August 27, 1984. As proper proclamation had not been done. Properties to be sold included plots measuring 121 sq. yards and 355 sq. yards. Subhash Chander, having learnt that Vidya Bhushan makes transfer of plots on concessional rates by receiving bribe approached him on August 24, 1984 and made a prayer that plots measuring 121 sq. yards and, 355 sq. yards situated at village Noorpur Bhaini, which were to be auctioned on August 27, 1984, may be transferred to him at concessional. Vidya Bhushan agreed to allow his prayer on payment of Rs. 7000/ as illegal gratification. On August, 27, 1984, he again approached Vidya Bhushan. Many other persons had collected there on that date and he was informed that the plots will be transferred in his name on his making a deposit of Rs. 2420/ as 1/5th price, of the bid price for plot measuring 121 square yards, and Rs. 7080/ in respect of plot measuring 355 sq. yards, along with a sum of Rs. 7000/ as illegal gratification. After borrowing a sum of Rs. 1000/ from Karnail Singh, Subhash Chander made the deposit of Rs. 2420/ and Rs. 7080/ vide receipt Nos. 90 and 98 of Book No. 163 issued to him. The sum of Rs. 7000/ was handed over by him to Ram Parkash Sehgal Naib Tehsildar who soon thereafter handover that amount to Vidya Bhushan. After investigations it was found that false documents relating to the auction had been prepared and the other parties were informed that no auction will take place while Subhash Chander was shown as the highest bidder and his bid was accepted. It is however claimed that Chaman Lal, who was working as Patwari had made a report about the reserve price of the plots to be Rs. 90/ per sq. yard.

The learned counsel has urged that though the offence is said to have taken place on August 27, 1984, the FIR was registered only on March 2, 1988 and the prosecution had been lodged in the year 1990. He thus, claims that on account of this inordinate delay in initiation of the prosecution the FIR should be quashed. I am however unable to endorse this argument of the learned counsel. In a case like the present where an illegal act is done by a public servant by accepting illegal gratification the authorities normally acquire information at a much later stage. Though Subhash Chander had filed the affidavit on February 28, 1986, the authorities had to verify if the allegations made in the affidavit carried some truth and it was only after enquiries that a criminal case was got registered. This delay cannot be considered to be fatal to the prosecution and the FIR cannot be quashed on that basis.

Petitioner Vidya Bhushan was a Teshildar & Ram Parkash Sehgal was a Naib Tehsildar and they had committed the alleged offence while serving on those posts. They have since retired. The question of obtaining sanction as a precondition for the Court in taking cognizance is a matter which has to be considered by the Court taking cognizance. The absence of sanction from the competent authority does not operate as a bar to the presentation of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. though it does operate as a bar to the taking of cognizance. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the FIR, thus cannot be quashed on the basis that a valid sanction had not been obtained. The question whether this sanction is necessary for taking cognizance of offences against officers who have since retired is left open to be decided by the trial Court.

With respect to Vidya Bhushan and Ram Parkash Sehgal the allegations of receiving illegal gratification and fabrication of official record for showing favour to Subhash Chander are made out. The truthfulness or otherwise of the same has to be considered by the trial Court and no case for quashing is made out.

Case of Chaman Lal, Patwari however stands on a different footing. He had made a report about the reserve price to be fixed. It was done even prior to the first date of auction fixed by the authorities i.e. August 1, 1984. It is not claimed that this price was so fixed with an ulterior motive to cause wrongful gain to someone. Chaman Lal was not the final authority to fix the reserve price but he was only to make a report on the basis of instances he could gather from the revenue record. He could have fallen into error of judgment while fixing reserve price, but the same will not make out a criminal charge against him. No other evidence having been collected against Chaman Lal about his connivance with the other petitioners for allotment of the plots in favour of Subhash Chander, no criminal offence is made out against him. I hereby accept the petition of Chaman Lal and quash the FIR and consequent proceedings qua him. Petition of Vidya Bhushan Sharda and Ram Parkash Sehgal shall stand dismissed.

JUDGMENT accordingly.