S.S.GREWAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of F.I.R. No. 273 dated 16-7-1981 registered against the petitioner under section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at Police Station Rajpura, district Patiala, Annexure P. 3, as well as other resultant proceedings, taken thereunder including summoning order, Annexure P. 2.
(2.) IN brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, which emerge from the impugned First Information Report, are that the present petitioner misutilising his official power and post and without the sanction of Pesticide Advisory Committee purchased 46500 litres insecticide/medicines for killing big ants from M/s Zimidara Chemical Rajpura, of which Mohinder Kumar brother-in-law of the present petitioner was a Salesman, with effect from 13-12-1972 to 474. Insecticide purchased from the said firm was of lowest quality. Thereafter in violation of Insecticide Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the recommendations of the Pesticide Advisory Committee empty tins of the insecticide already purchased, to the aforesaid firm at the rate of 30 Paisa per tin instead of 50 paise per tin thereby petitioner caused illegal benefit to the tune of Rs. 4570.60 to the firm. Besides, the petitioner was also responsible for making other purchases from the said firm in violation of the Rules. On this basis case under section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner retired from his service as Joint Director Agriculture Punjab, on 31-12-1978, Challan in this case was initially presented in the Court of Special Judge, Patiala on 23-9-1981. The petitioner, however was discharged by the said Court on 5-12-1983 on the ground, that no case can be filed against the accused (petitioner) without taking sanction from the Government as required under Section 197 of the Code. The Court had also directed that the authorities would be at liberty to proceed in the matter after obtaining proper sanction, if, so advised. After obtaining proper sanction on 2-4-1988 from the State Government fresh challan was presented in the Court of Special Judge, Patiala in January, 1989. Learned counsel for the State did not file any reply in this case in spite of the fact that the State was duly represented and numerous adjournments were granted to the State for this purpose.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties were heard and record was perused.;