K.S.BHALLA, J. - (1.) IN the year 1973-74, respondent Dharminder Lal Bhandari (now retired) was posted as Executive Engineer, Bridge Investigation Circle (Division), Public Works Department (B & R) Amritsar, and respondent Jaswant Singh was Second Clerk, Bridge Investigation Circle of the said department. Tenders for construction of Gharinda-Gharindi Link Road were invited in the year 1973 and respondent Pritpal Singh as contractor also submitted his tender wherein he quoted rate of Rs. 120.50 per hundred cubic feet. Tender of Pritpal Singh was accepted by the Executive Engineer, his rate being the lowest. Subsequently, the rate quoted in his tender was changed to Rs. 130.50 per hundred cubic feet resulting in pecuniary advantage to the contractor and wrongful loss to the Government. This change allegedly was made by respondent Jaswant Singh Clerk in connivance With respondents Dharminder Lal Bhandari and Pritpal Singh. All the three respondents were made criminally liable for the said act and case against them was registered on 19-7-1978 for commission of offences, punishable under Section 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The occurrence is said to have taken place between 29.5.1973 to 26-6-1973.
(2.) CHALLAN in the said case was presented on 10-12-1985 and the case was being tried before Special Judge, Amritsar. During trial, an application was moved contending that the matter could not proceed further because challan had been put up more than four years after the commission of the alleged offences and the accused could not be indicted for what they were said to have done on. account of lapse of time. Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, was relied upon. It was observed that proviso (3) thereto which runs as under provided an embargo against judicial proceedings :- "No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution". The said matter was considered by this Court in Des Raj Singal v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Report 66 1986(1) : PLR 82. The contention of the accused weighed with the learned Judge and following pronouncement in the aforesaid, case vide its impugned judgment dated 3-3-1980, Sarvshri D. L. Bhandari and Jawant Singh were acquitted whereas the challan against Pritpal Singh was ordered to be returned to the investigating agency with the remarks that they could present the case before a Court having jurisdiction to go into it, if so desired. Feeling aggrieved against the said decision, State of Punjab has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 380-DBA of 1989.
(3.) LEAVE to appeal was granted possibly for the reason that aforesaid pronouncement of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court. The apex Court in the cases State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Report 139 and State of Punjab and others v. Mangal Singh Minhas and others, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 558 has said that keeping in said rule view the scope of Article 309 as also the purpose of R. 2.2, the cannot be interpreted to be a rule placing an embargo on prosecution of a Government servant on the expiry of four years from the date of cause of action or event mentioned therein. No doubt the law so laid down makes it clear that respondents Dharminder Lal Bhandari and Jaswant Singh cannot be acquitted on account of proviso (3) to Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and impugned judgment of the trial Court cannot be sustained, but the case is to be viewed from another angle as well now that we are in the year 1990.;