Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Singh Kular vs State Of Punjab on 25 November, 2008
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
CRM No. 24651 -M of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. 24651 -M of 2004
Decided on: November 25,2008.
Ram Singh Kular ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajai Lamba
Present Mr.TPS Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Ajai Lamba, J ( Oral )
This petition has been filed on behalf of Sh. Ram Singh Kular under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 24.8.2002, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, whereby it has been directed that charge be framed against the petitioner for committing offense under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner carried revision against the order of charge and charge sheet which has been dismissed vide the other impugned order that has been placed on record as Annexure P16, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the Principal of the college. It was at the instance of the petitioner that the offences committed by Baljit Singh and Superintendent Surrender Pal Gupta came to light. Learned counsel further contends that during investigation, Superintendent of Police (D), Sangrur found as a matter of fact that the petitioner had no role in appointing Baljit Singh and therefore recommended that the name of the petitioner be removed from the case. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court towards an inquiry conducted by the Managing Committee of Akal Degree College, Mastuana Sahib wherein it was found that the petitioner was innocent and only Surinder Pal Gupta Superintendent and Baljit Singh , Mechanic were guilty.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that CRM No. 24651 -M of 2004 2 since petitioner was incharge of affairs of the college, the petitioner cannot be absolved of the responsibility.
I have considered the issue. It transpires that 8 posts of Mechanic were to be filled. Baljit Singh came to be one of the appointees as a Mechanic. Specifically it came to light that Baljit Singh was drawing salary from the College as well as from Security Services at KBPL, Sangrur as intimated by M/s.Chandigarh Liaison And Allied Services (P) Ltd. for the period from 1.2.1997 to 9.7.1997. Baljit Singh was drawing salary from the college account had resorted to forgery and fabrication in record in getting himself marked present on duty in college.
Perusal of document placed as Annexure P4 indicates that it was the petitioner who made an application to the Manager Indian Oil Corporation for extracting information as to where Baljit Singh had been working in Indian Oil Corporation, Sangrur or not. Communication is dated 12.2.2001. Indian Oil Corporation vide communication dated 15.2.2001 ( Annexure P5 ) informed the petitioner that Baljit Singh was employed as Supervisor for a brief period by M/s.Chandigarh Liaison And Allied Services (P) Ltd. In view of this information, the petitioner approached M/s. Chandigarh Liaison And Allied Services (P) Ltd vide communication of April 2001 placed on record as Annexure P6 whereupon specific information came vide communication Annexure P7 dated 12.4.2001. The petitioner was informed that Baljit Singh had been working for M/s. Chandigarh Liaison And Allied Services (P) Ltd as Contract Labour employed for security services at KBPL, Sangrur. The FIR came to be lodged on 6.6.2001.
It seems that during the course of investigation, the matter was considered by Superintendent of Police (D), Sangrur. The report has been placed on record as Annexure P10. The Officeri.e Superintendent of Police (D), Sangrur after considering the entire issue submitted his report in the following terms-
" Enquiry was got conducted as per the enclosed complaint No. 5964/P dated 16.6.2001. During the course of enquiry Baljit Singh s/o Amar Singh was appointed as Mechanic on dated 1.8.1997 who had been getting salary for the period of five months w.e.f 1.3.1997 to 31.7.1997 after marking CRM No. 24651 -M of 2004 3 presence vide Cheques Nos. 268072 and 268305 dated 2.4.1998 although Bank Account was opened in September, 1997. during the said period, Baljit Singh was working as Security Supervisor at Indian Oil Corporation Aeri Road, Sangrur who had also been given salary by the IOC w.e.f 1.3.1997 to 30.6.1997. The salary bill were being prepared by Surinderpal Gupta, Superintendent Akal Degree College, Mastuana. Ram Singh Principal Akal Degree College, Mastuana has the D.D.O. powers. He does not prepare the salary bills etc. S Ram Singh Principal is being found as innocent vide this case No. 193 dated 6.6.2001 u/s 465, 467, 468, 420, 120 B IPC Police Station Sangrur. He has no role in appointing the accused S. Baljit Singh. It is recommended to withdraw the name of S. Ram Singh from the above said case."
It seems that the petitioner was shown in column no.2 of the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, however, charges have been framed, the petitioner having been summoned to stand trial.
On going through the impugned orders, I find that the relevant material has not been considered. All that has been said in the context of the petitioner is that the petitioner was Drawing and Disbursing Officer and therefore, the petitioner along with the Superintendent namely Sh. Surinder Pal Gupta and Baljit Singh had committed the offences. Likewise the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed without taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case particularly in the context of nature of duties and conduct of the petitioner. Framing of charge is a serious matter for an accused. In the investigation report, while recommending withdrawal of case against the petitioner, it has been stated by the Superintendent of Police (D) that the petitioner was not involved in preparing salary bills etc. Rather it was the Superintendent who prepared the bills.
I have also considered the documents to which reference has been made here-in-above which indicates that it was at the instance of CRM No. 24651 -M of 2004 4 the petitioner that the involvement of Baljit Singh came to be known. The petitioner made relevant inquiry from various agencies and came to know that Baljit Singh had committed the offence causing loss to the college.
These relevant facts and circumstances having not been taken into account by the Court, manifest injustice has been caused. There is no material available on the record to indicate that the petitioner acting as a Principal was required to go through each and every salary bill and Attendance Register of each and every employee. The fabrication / forgery is in the Attendance Register. The salary bills were drawn by the Superintendent.
I have also considered the fact that the petitioner is a highly qualified person having done M.A in English, M.A in Punjabi and M.A in Religious Studies. The petitioner also has a degree in M. Phil and has also done Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism. The track record of the petitioner is that he was a Lecturer at College level from July 1970 to September 1992. From September 1992, the petitioner served as Principal till filing of the case. The petitioner has since retired. On the basis of technicality that the trial Court would consider the issue after trial, a person such as the petitioner cannot be asked to face protracted trial particularly in the face of the material and documents available on record as considered and discussed above.
There is no material to indicate that forgery/fabrication or cheating was made at the instance or by the petitioner and further there being no material to indicate that the petitioner was in the know of the offences being committed by Surinderpal Gupta and Ballet Singh, there was no occasion to ask the petitioner to stand trial.
Petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 24.8.2002, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur,is set aside.
November 25, 2008 ( Ajai Lamba ) mamta Judge