NAGINDER SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- Naginder Singh Rana, petitioner, seeks quashing of case bearing FIR No. 39 dated 6-5-1994 registered under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act) and Ss. 409, 167, 218, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, I.P.C., with police station Kotwali, District Faridkot, and subsequent proceedings including the report submitted under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which had been filed without obtaining sanction to prosecute the petitioner as required under S. 197, Cr. P.C.

(2.) The present case was registered on the basis of letter No. 1010/R/IG/INV dated 31-8-1992 written by Ramesh Lal Jain, District Convener, LPG Dealers Association, Faridkot, addressed to Inspector General of Police, Internal Vigilance, Punjab, Chandigarh. It was stated therein that Naginder Singh Rana, petitioner-accused had falsely registered case bearing FIR No. 26 dated 18-3-1992 against M/s. Jain Gas Agency, Faridkot. According to the allegations made, Naginder Singh Rana who was posted as Sub-Inspector in C.I.A. Staff, Faridkot, had raided the office and godown of M/s. Jain Gas Agency, Faridkot. He counted the filled, empty and defective cylinders kept in the godown and tallied the same with the stock register. As per the stock register, 767 cylinders were accounted for but he took 747 cylinders from the godown and 20 cylinders from the cart (Rehra) in the Bazaar which were loaded for distribution to the customers. Thereafter, he took those gas cylinders to police station Kotwali, Faridkot. In the report lodged, he showed recovery of 743 cylinders instead of 767 actually taken into possession from the godown and cart (Rehra) and in this manner, misappropriated 24 cylinders which consisted of 20 filled cylinders and 4 cylinders which were shown to be sold in black market. Naginder Singh Rana misused his office by getting a case registered because earlier he had taken Rs. 20,000.00 in cash as bribe from M/s. Jain Gas Agency by putting pressure and the said amount was paid to him in order to avoid maltreatment at his hands. The payment so made was shown in the cash-book and ledger maintained by the Jain Gas Agency. Sukhdev Singh, owner of cart Rehra, had furnished an affidavit in this regard. Accordingly, it was prayed that necessary action be taken against the petitioner-accused.

(3.) It also transpired during investigation that Naginder Singh Rana while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot, had received information that owner of M/s. Jain Gas Agency, namely, Ramesh Lal Jain, was engaged in the business of selling the filled cylinders of gas in black market. On the basis of this information, he arranged for four empty cylinders and got four filled cylinders at the rate of Rs. 200.00 each and the said currency notes of Rs. 800.00, the numbers of which were noted down, were recovered from Ramesh Lal Jain. He had also recovered slip pertaining to sale of cylinders in black market from the pocket of Sukhdev who was posted as Manager in the godown. Accordingly, case bearing FIR No. 26 dated 18-3-1992 under S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against Ramesh Lal Jain, owner of M/s. Jain Gas Agency. Regarding the case so registered, Ramesh Lal Jain made a complaint to the higher police officials against Naginder Singh Rana, petitioner-accused, which was enquired into by D.S.P. Kanwar Bahadur Singh posted at Faridkot and Senior Superintendent of Police Shri Jasminder Singh, stationed at Faridkot, and the complaint was found to be false but the said Ramesh Lal Jain, owner of the gas agency, had exercised political pressure and got the aforesaid case cancelled. Thereafter, the present case was got registered by Ramesh Lal Jain. The police after investigation of this case, sent its untraced report in the Court of Shri Hardial Singh, Special Judge, Faridkot, who did not agree with the report and vide order dated 23-5-1998 came to the conclusion that the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation have supported the case of the complainant and that the matter needs judicial verdict and for that reason, directed the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction for the prosecution of petitioner-accused and then submit final report.