GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Information Report No. 10 dated 3rd February, 1987 registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Machiwara district Ludhiana is based on the contents of letter No. 39249-C dated 23rd JAnuary, 1989 addressed by District Manager, Markfed, Ludhiana to SSP, Ludhiana, which reads" The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana No. 07/Ldb/88/SAL/4403 dated 31.8.1988. Sub :- Registration of criminal case against Shri Gursharan Singh son of Shri Jagir Singh, Senior Branch Officer (Now under suspension) and Shri Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Field Assistant ( Now under suspension ) Sir, The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh registered at Ropar as Co-operative Society under the Punjab State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is a State Government partnered institution and deals in procurement of wheat in Central Pool along with other works. That Shri Gursharan Singh son of Shri Jagir Singh, Senior Branch Officer (Now under suspension), Village Boparai, District Ludhiana and Shri Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Field Assistant ( Now under suspension) Village and Post Office Koom Kalam, District Ludhiana are employees of Markfed. They were posted in joint custodians of wheat stocks stored at Branch Office, Machiwara, for the crops 1985-86 from April, 1985 to 10.8.1987. At the time of disposal of the wheat stocks held under their joint custody, 1423.44.400 qtls. of wheat stocks crop 1984-85 and 2658.14. 700 qtls. of wheat stocks of crop 1985-86 valuing Rs. 3,55,450.44 and Rs. 6,61,978.51 respectively were found short in their charge at the time of final emptying of the godowns. They have also replaced 1439 Bags wheat stock of 1985-86 crop containing 803.40 qtls of fair average quality wheat with equivalent quantity of inferior quality of wheat falling in the category of industrial use and dumping manure type wheat with intention in defraud and cheat Markfed and have cornered the good wheat so replaced for their own use. In doing so, They have caused a loss of Rs. 1,93,584.19 to Markfed in the shape of difference in cost of FAQ wheat and of inferior quality of wheat which Markfed had to dispose of on lesser rated. As such, the accused have caused a total loss of Rs. 12,11,013.14 to Markfed which is criminal breach of trust and have also dishonestly misappropriated the property of Markfed which was purchased for the Central Pool as fair average quality of wheat. It is therefore requested that a criminal case may be registered against both the accused under the law. Thanking you, yours faithfully, Sd/- Ranjit Singh, District Manager, Markfed, Ludhiana, 31.8.1988.

(2.) SAME matter was thereafter referred to Arbitration. Shri V.K. Bansal P.C.S. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana, was appointed arbitrator. In his award Annexure P. 2 dated 13th August, 1990 the arbitrator has given a clean chit to the petitioner. The relevant portion reads," In view of the foregoing reasons, because Shri Gurmit Singh has been transferred from Branch Office, Machiwara, he is being exonerated." The misappropriation pertains to the year 1984-86. The First Information Report was lodged 3 to 5 years thereafter on 3rd February,1989. In view of the findings recorded by the arbitrator an abuse of the process of the court. Criminal Misc. No. 11845-M of 1990 has been filed by Gurmit Singh petitioner fro quashing the First Information Report on this score.

(3.) THE only question for determination in these proceedings is whether a prosecution could be launched against the petitioner on the same set of facts which were the subject matter of the award Annexure P. 2 dated 13th August,1990. The question was answered in the affirmative by D.S. Tewatia J. ( as his lordship then was) in Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and another, volume LXXXIV-1972 Punjab Law Reporter 26. This judgment, as it emerge from a reading of para 5 was based on concession of the Deputy Advocate General and not on a legal interpretation. The view of this court in this regard has undergone a change in its later decisions. It has consistently been held in Harbhagwan Das v. State of Punjab, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 156, Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab Cr. Misc. No. 429-M of 1987 and Bant Singh v. The Dulley Co-operative Agricultural Services Society Ltd., 1987(2) Recent Criminal Report 435 that in the light of the above noted facts it looks apparent that to proceed against the petitioner in a Criminal Court on the same set of facts which were the subject matter of the award against him before the arbitrator, is the abuse of the process of Court.