Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 7 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994CRILJ2227
JUDGMENT Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
1. Ishar Singh worked as Section Officer, Municipal Committee. Jagraon. On 20-6-1991 the Municipal Committee Jagraon sent a bank draft for Rs. 1,42,570/- to the. branch office of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mathura, at Chandigarh for supply of 4 m.m. tons of Bitumen. Thereafter on 4-7-1991 Sudhir Kumar, Clerk, Municipal Committee, Jagraon was sent to Mathura to bring the bitumen. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Mathura Refinery sent four trucks of bitumen and out of these four trucks, truck No. HR- 01-5845 reached Municipal Committee, Jagraon on 9-7-1991 and truck No. HR-01 - 445, G. R. No. 157 reached on 10-7-1991. Entries regarding the arrival of these trucks were made in the record, of the Municipal Committee. The goods sent by third truck which was despatched from Mathura on 8-7-1991 and of the 4th truck despatched on 30-8-1991 were not entered in the stock register of the Municipal Committee nor Ishar Singh petitioner and Sudhir Kumar clerk informed the Executive Officer of Municipal Committee, Jagraon, about the non-receipt of these trucks. When the record of the Municipal Committee was checked it came to light that these employees had made the trucks disappear in transit. The matter was then brought to the notice of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Jagraon, by Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Administrator, Municipal Committee, Jagraon on 22-4-1992 and a case under Section 409, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and Sudhir Kumar. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the above referred first, information report Annexure P/4 and subsequent proceedings and investigation initiated thereunder.
2. It was averred in the petition that the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Jagraon had deputed Sudhir Kumar clerk to take delivery of bulk bitumen from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mathura Refinery and to transport the same to Jagraon. He was not working under the petitioner and was to report to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee about the taking of the delivery of bitumen, its transport and arrival at Jagraon. Two trucks reached Municipal Committee, Jagraon and the bitumen carried in the same was received by the petitioner and was duly entered in the stock register. No more bitumen was delivered to him till he remained posted at Jagraon. He was transferred to Mansa and he was relieved on 16-8-1991. The question of his entering any bitumen received thereafter in the stock register did not arise. One of the trucks was alleged to have left Mathura on 30-8-1991, that is, after he had relinquished charge at Jagraon. When bitumen of the two trucks was never delivered to him, there was no question of misappropriation of the same. He was falsely involved in the case and his prosecution was malicious. Even during investigation of the case no material had come out to show any criminal act on his part. It was further alleged that no case could be registered with police without prior permission of the Commissioner Local Funds Accounts as provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 18, Chapter XVII of Punjab Municipal Accounts Code.
3. In the return filed by the respondent this fact was admitted that the petitioner was transferred from Jagraon to Mansa and was relieved from Municipal Committee, Jagraon on 16-8-1991, but it was maintained that he managed his transfer with ulterior motive to escape from liability of negligence of duty and sale of two trucks of bitumen in connivance' with Sudhir Kumar clerk out of four trucks. Three trucks containing bitumen left Mathura on 8-7-1991 and the fourth on 30-8-1991. Two trucks reached Jagraon, one on 9-7-1991 and the second on 10-7-1991 but no information was given by the petitioner regarding non-arrival of the third truck as the bitumen transported by that truck was sold in transit had not reached Municipal Committee, Jagraon.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that the case against the petitioner was- registered on 22-4-1992 and investigation of the case was conducted since then but no material had been collected to fasten the petitioner with any criminal liability. So far as the averments in the petition were concerned, the same did ot disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 409, I.P.C. This fact is not denied that 4 MM Tonnes of bitumen was ordered to be purchased from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mathura, but vide Annexure P/1 Sudhir Kumar clerk of Municipal Committee, Jagraon was authorised to take delivery of the goods by executive officer, Municipal Committee, Jagraon, and he in fact had gone to Mathura for taking the delivery as two trucks had arrived at, Jagraon. The entries with respect to the same were duly made in the stock register maintained in the Municipal Committee by the petitioner. 'The third truck which left Mathura on 8-7-1991 did not arrive so no entry with respect to that could be made by the petitioner. The last consignment was despatched on 30-8-1991 and by that time the petitioner was no longer working in Municipal Committee, Jagraon. No evidence had been collected to show that the petitioner was conniving with Sudhir Kumar in any manner and the goods were disposed of in transit. Even in the first information report the allegations against the petitioner were that he was negligent in not informing the executive officer regarding the non-receipt of bitumen. Unless there was some evidence to show that bitumen was entrusted to the petitioner he could not be held liable for misappropriation of the same.
6. I have considered the above contention of the learned counsel and I find that the same is quite valid. The petitioner had relinquished his charge at Jagraon on 16-8-1991 and he could not be fastened with any liability in the non-receipt of the goods which were sent from Mathura on 30-8-1991. Regarding the goods which were sent vide the third truck too he was not prima facie liable. It was Sudhir Kumar who was authorised to take delivery of the goods. Sudhir Kumar was not directed to inform the petitioner regarding the despatch of consignment from Mathura. He was to give information to the executive officer and if he had failed to apprise the executive officer regarding non-receipt of the goods of the two trucks, the petitioner could not be said to have committed any offence of embezzlement. Normally the Court will not enquire with the investigation' into the offence and will generally allow the investigation in the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If, on the other hand, no consideration of the relevant materials no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and un-necessary harassment to an individual. In State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, , the Apex Court observed : -
"A first information report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirement of the penal provisions are prima facie satisfied cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. An investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR. It is surely not within the province of the police to investigate into a report which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the Court does not impose upon them the duty of enquiry in such cases."
7. In the instant case the allegations in the first information report do not make out a prima facie case under Section 409, I.P.C. against the petitioner and in spite of the fact that investigation is continuing for the last about two years, the learned State counsel failed to disclose any material collected by the investigating agency showing any misappropriation of the property of the Municipal Committee by the petitioner or his connivance with Sudhir Kumar in disposing of the same for his own benefit. In these circumstances the first information report in question is liable to be quashed.
8. For the reasons recorded above I allow this petition and quash F.I.R. No. 153 dated 22-4-1992 Annexure P/4 and subsequent proceedings arising there from qua the petitioner.