SATNAM SINGH SAHNI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSPECTOR Satya Nand of Vigilance Bureau Flying Squad, Patiala lodged an FIR against the present petitioner and others on 10.1.1989 alleging therein that the petitioner along with Harbhajan Singh, J.E., Paramjit Singh, S.D.C. and Harbhajan Singh, Clerk working in Sub Division, PWD Patiala in connivance with each other prepared forged vouchers of stocks. As per the FIR the petitioner along with the aforementioned persons embezzled an amount of Rs. 17383.20 between April 1984 to November 1984. It has also been alleged that there was no work authority with the petitioner and they also lost five vouchers.

(2.) MR . Chopra, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the offence is alleged to have been committed between April 1984 to November 1984, whereas the FIR in the present case is of 10.1.1989. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is a delay of more than four years and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed on this ground. Learned counsel further contends that in the present case, the petitioner is only the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Mr. Chopra relies on the judgment of this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 10041-M of 1990 "B.B. Aggarwal v. State of Punjab" decided on 3.12.1990 wherein the FIR was quashed as there was a considerable delay of three years in lodging the FIR.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the embezzlement is alleged to have taken place between April 1984 to November, 1984. The alleged embezzlement came to the knowledge of the State in the year 1986. Even thereafter, there is a delay of four years. Hence, I find that there is a delay of four years in lodging the FIR. In Criminal Misc. 2829-M of 1989 "Balraj Singh v. State of Punjab" there was a delay of about three years and on this ground, the FIR was quashed by this Court. Moreover, now a period of more than 18 years has elapsed since the commission of the offence. Obviously, after a gap of so many years, the witnesses will not remember the entire incident and the manner in which the embezzlement had taken place. It was incumbent upon the prosecution that the trial of the case should be got conducted speedily. A lot of time has been lost in investigating the case.