Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 March, 2012
Criminal Misc. M-2199 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. M-2199 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision:12th March, 2012
Jasbir Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
........ Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. D.S.Phereuman, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent - State.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes/No
Vijender Singh Malik, J.(Oral)
On being pointed out by learned State counsel that charge has been framed against the petitioner by the trial court for offence under sections 468, 471 IPC also, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to add these sections in the head note of the petition.
The prayer is allowed.
The newly added sections be incorported in the head note of the petition.
Jasbir Singh has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 3, dated 07.01.2011 at Police Station Division No. 2, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur for an offence punishable under sections 409, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Criminal Misc. M-2199 of 2012 2 Code, 1860 and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the Act").
The allegations against the petitioner are that by forging the signatures of Veena Kumari, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of Government Senior Secondary School, Badhani (Gurdaspur), he has withdrawn `23,75,000/- from the GPF account of the employees of the school.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the accounts clerk in the school. According to him, nothing has been done by the investigating agency so far to compare the signatures on the withdrawal forms with the signatures of the petitioner. According to him, the treasury officer used to compare the signatures of drawing and disbursing officer on the withdrawal forms before passing the bills. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2011 and so far no sanction has been accorded for his prosecution under section 13(2) of the Act which is required under section 19 of the Act.
Learned State counsel on the instructions from ASI, Kewal Krishan admits that no sanction has so far been accorded for prosecution of the petitioner qua the offence under the provisions of the Act.
Whether the petitioner has withdrawn the amount of `23,75,000/- from the GPF account of the employees of the school, is a question to be decided by the trial court after taking evidence. The fact remains that no prior sanction for prosecuting the petitioner has so for been accorded. The petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2011.
In view of the above circumstances, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of `25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
[VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE 12th March, 2012 Shivani Kaushik