JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSELY, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, the Vigilance Department of Punjab received the information from reliable source that petitioner Jagjit Singh, Clerk and his other co-accused Raman Kumar, SO, Gurmukh Singh and Gian Singh etc. were preparing and issuing the false documents/registration certificates (for short "the RCs") etc. after accepting the illegal gratification. They were stated to have issued fake registration Nos.PB-31-C-3487, PB-31-C-3517 to the oil tankers, bearing registration Nos.HRL-7187 & HR-46-5757 and PB-31-C- 6163 to the truck, bearing No.HNR-5482 respectively, by using the fabricated and forged documents/NOC & verification etc. The matter was investigated and the Vigilance Department unearthed a big scam in this respect.

(2.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the final police report, in all, according to the prosecution that the petitioner and his other co-accused have prepared, fabricated and issued the forged RCs/NOC/verifications and illegally sold the same as genuine to the owners/drivers of the oil tankers/trucks, after accepting the illegal gratification from them. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of inquiry, a criminal case was registered against petitioner Jagjit Singh and his other co- accused, by means of FIR No.23 dated 29.7.2005 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) & (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the PC Act") by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda.

(3.) THE case set up by the petitioner, in brief in so far as relevant, was that he has been falsely implicated by the police as he was not posted at the relevant time on the particular seat in the office of District Transport Officer (for brevity "the DTO"), Mansa. It was claimed that before according sanction against the petitioner, the State Transport Commissioner (in short "the STC") had written a letter (Annexure P5) to Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau to clarify that he (petitioner) was not posted in the office of DTO, Mansa when the RCs and others documents, in respect of the vehicles in question were issued. No sanction has been accorded against him till today. He has already retired from service on 30.11.2008 and all his retiral benefits have not been released to him on account of pendency of this case. THE continuation of criminal proceedings was stated to be sheer misuse and abuse of process of law, as no pointed offences are made out against him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) qua him in the manner depicted hereinbefore.