RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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 :-