K JAYARAJ Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of fact and law arise in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Alleging that the petitioner while working as Foreman, Cantonment Board (the Board), in connivance with A-2, made A-2 to start a fictitious automobile workshop in the name of M/s. Choudhary Bros, and brought into existence of fake bills and withdrew huge amounts from the Board by playing fraud, without actually effecting repairs to the vehicles belonging to the Board or purchasing the spare parts for the vehicles of the Board and thus committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 428,(?) 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act), the Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment filed charge-sheets against the petitioner and A-2 for each year in which the offence was committed. These petitions are filed to quash the charge-sheets against the petitioners.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is the fact that petitioner and A-2 only are charge-sheeted leaving the higher officials of the Board, who also are named in the FlR, shows that, petitioner, who is only a Foreman in the Board, is targeted, for some reasons and hence is an abuse of process of law, more so, because, as per Section 30 of the Cantonments Accounts Code the Officer making payment only is personally responsible for the bills passed by him, and since reasons for not charge- sheeting the Officers who passed the bills are not explained. His second contention is that since the investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, but not by the inspector of Police, and since no sanction of the Central Government, as required under Section 19 of the Act, is obtained, the procecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed, by strongly relying on para 136 of State of Haryana v. Bajan Lal, at pages 004 to 635.