KULBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULBIR Singh, petitioner, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashment of the F. I. R. (Annexure P-1) No. 135, registered at Police Station Chheherta, Amritsar on 21-8-1989 for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 409, read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code relating to the embezzlement of Rs. 4,36,345. 28, mainly on the ground of delay of 9 years in the registration of the case and completion of investigation as well as on the ground that as per rule 4. 51 of the Punjab P. W. D. Code, the petitioner was not liable as his successor has failed to report the loss of stone metal within a reasonable time of taking the charge.

(2.) THE breif resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that Kulbir Singh, petitioner while posted as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Sub-Division No. I in Distirct Amritsar was also given the charge of construction Division II, Amritsar. During this period, flooring and widowing of the road between Guru Nanak Dev University up to gateway of India, Chheherta by laying stone metal was in progress. Some contractors vide agreement supplied metal stone to the Department, which was found short by 6056 cubic meter of the value of Rs. 4,36,345. 28. It is further alleged that the record was forged depicting receipt of less quantity of metal stone from the contractor by the petitioner as well as by S/shri S. S. Bhatti, Executive Engineer, G. S. Sidhu, Executive Engineer and Baldev Singh, Junior Engineer. It is further stated in the F. I. R. that running payment was required to be made at different stages while the work was in progress, but in this case, payment was made after completion of the work for the reasons known to these persons which is against the rules and illegal. On the basis of information from reliable source, the above referred case was registered by Apar Singh, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau posted at Amritsar. It is noteworthy that the investigation of the case is till in progress as no stay order was issued in this criminal misc proceedings. This petitioner was filed by Kulbir Singh on 28-9-1989.

(3.) THE petitioner had averred in the petition that out of the 10 agreements for supply of metal stone, the petitioner was given charge of group I agreement for supply of metal stone of the value of about Rs. 50,000/-, for the year 1980-81 and that due to dual charge of this division and construction Division No. II, Ajnala, the petitioner used to work half day at Amritsar and other half day at Ajnala after convering the distance of 40 kilometers daily. The dual charge was assigned to him by Shri P. P. Sharma, the then Executive Engineer and that under the aforesaid Mr. P. I. Sharma, the petitioner had to submit IVth bill of M/s. Almaid Co-op. Landc Society who had supplied the material in Group I of the contract. The material supplied by the contractor as per record was 2030 stacks of one Cubic meter each but after checking the petitioner found the quantity to be 1890 cubic meter and submitted the bill as directed by Mr. P. P. Sharma, Executive Engineer, but the bill was returned with the remarks that the measurement should be recorded by the petitioner in his own hand. Accordingly the petitioner did the needful. It is further averred that Shri P. P. Sharma, then came for personal checking of the material at site on 6-10-1982 but found no variation either in the number or in the height of stacks. Mr. P. P. Sharma did not; in the inspection note, point out any variation in the material. Thereafter the Superintending Engineer deputed Shri V. P. Trehan, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Barnala, Construction Division No. 3 at Amritsar, for physical checking of the material and on 17-8-1982, Shri Trehan endorsed the measurement of the stock conducted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Superintendent Engineer, being not satisfied with this report, again deputed Shri S. P. Singh, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Cent Works Sub-Division, Pathankot for physical checking of the material. He also conducted the measurement on 10-12-1982 and found the same to be correct. The petitioner was then transferred and as his apparent from Annexure P-2, he left the charge on 8-10-1982. Thus the petitioner maintains that the material throughout remained in the custody of others and Mr. Sharma, got transferred some material from the ten groups in question to other divisions, in order to show the shortage for falsely involving the petitioner, and that the said lifting of material was reported to the Chief Engineer by Shri Baldev Singh, Junior Engineer (co-accused of the petitioner ). It is also averred that the alleged shortgage was shown after one year of the transfer of the petitioner from this division which is against the spirits of para 4. 51 of Punjab P. W. D. Code. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has averred that the registration of the case relating the embezzlement of the metal stone after the lapse of 9 years is motivated as the case was reregistered when the petitioner was just being considered for promotion as Executive Engineer.