Ojha, J. - (1.) These appeals raise an identical question of law and can conveniently be decided by a common order. Kailash Nath, respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 422/88, was working as Executive Engineer in Public Works Department in the State of Punjab in the year 1979. On various dates in that year, he placed orders for the purchase of sign boards which were required by the Department to avoid accidents on roads and for traffic safety. The requisite sign boards were purchased in pursuance of the aforementioned orders. In the year 1980 some complaints were received in the Department against the respondent pertaining to the purchase of the sign-boards. A vigilance enquiry was instituted by the Vigilance Bureau to enquire into the complaints and ultimately a First Information Report was lodged on August 27, 1985 against the respondent under sub-secs. (1) and (2) of S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the meantime, the respondent had retired from the post of Executive Engineer with effect from October 31, 1982.
(2.) The aforesaid First Information Report was challenged by the respondent in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5837-M/85 on the ground that the same having been lodged about three years after his retirement and about six years after the event of purchase of Sign-boards in 1979 was in the teeth of R. 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II and consequently was liable to be quashed The plea raised by the respondent found favour with the High Court which relying on an earlier decision of that Court in Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab, 1986 (89) 1 Pun LR 82 quashed the First Information Report by its order dated February 12, 1986.
(3.) Mangal Singh Minhas, the respondent in Criminal Appeals Nos. 423-24/1988, was posted in the Industrial Supply Section of the Directorate of Industries where various types of raw materials including wax and import licences are dealt with. A First Information Report was lodged against the respondent on June 19, 1980. It appears that the respondent applied in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing of the First Information Report on account of which challan could not be filed and it was only when tile challenge to the First Information Report was repelled by the High Court that a challan was filed on August 28, 1985. In the meantime. the respondent retired as Superintendent, Directorate of Industries, Punjab, on September 30, 1983. On the challan being filed the respondent again made an application in the High Court for quashing of the prosecution against him. This prayer has been allowed by the High Court by its order dated September 4, 1986 and the prosecution against the respondent has been quashed relying on the aforesaid decision in the case of Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab. The present appeals have been filed by the State of Punjab against the aforesaid orders passed on the applications of Kailash Nath and Mangal Singh Minhas respectively.;