V.M.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 13.1.1999, passed by the CJM, ordering framing of charges against the accused-petitioner and also seeking quashment of the order dated 6.12.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision petition of the accused-petitioner and upholding the order dated 13.1.1999, passed by the CJM.
(2.) ANNEXURE P4 is the copy of the FIR 114 dated 13.12.1995, registered at Police Station, City Faridkot under Sections 409/420/120-B, IPC. against the accused-petitioner, at the instance of Director, Social Security, Punjab, Chandigarh. In the said FIR, it was alleged that the accused-petitioner, Ranjit Singh Puri retired District Social Welfare Officer, had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,51,413.63 from the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Faridkot, and that the government had taken a decision that an FIR be got registered against him and his co-accused, Gurjinder Singh Modi, Accountant. It was alleged that the said mis-appropriation had taken place in July, 1991. After the completion of investigation by the Police, the final report was submitted in the Court. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 13.1.1999 ordered the framing of charges under Sections 409/420/467/120-B, IPC, against the accused-petitioner and his co- accused. Aggrieved against the said order, passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused-petitioner and his co-accused, Gurjinder Singh Modi filed separate revision petitions before the Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 6.12.2000 dismissed both the revision petitions and upheld the order dated 13.11.1999, passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Court below, the accused-petitioner, Ranjit Singh, has filed the present petition in this Court, seeking quashment of the orders passed by the Courts below. In the present petition, it has been alleged by the accused-petitioner that he was working as District Social Welfare Officer, Mansa, and that he retired on 31.10.1994. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted before me that in view of Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, the accused-petitioner could not be prosecuted after retirement, if 4 years had already elapsed between the alleged act and the lodging of the FIR.
(3.) HOWEVER , I find no force in this contention of learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. In sub-Rule 3 of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, it has been provided as under :- "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 4 years before such institution." In the explanation to the Sub-Rule, it has been provided that a judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of the Police Officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. In the present case, the accused-petitioner is alleged to have committed the crime in July, 1991. The FIR is dated 13.12.1995. As per the allegations, made by the petitioner, in the present petition, he retired from service on 31.10.1994.;