AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14315-M of 1991 and. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14317-M of 1991 Amar Singh v. State of Punjab. Amar Singh petitioner has filed three petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurefor quashing FIR No. 88 dated 22/8/1991 under Section 201, 204,408,409,420,468, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered against him at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, F.I.R. No. 44 dated 22.8.1991 registered at Police Station Noorpur Bedi and F.I.R. No. 111 dated 22.8.1991 registered at Police Station Ropar regarding the same offences and for a direction to the Investigating Officer to stop further investigation against the petitioner. All these three cases were registered against the petitioner and some other persons on the basis of a letter sent to various Police Stations by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ropar. In F.I.R. No. 88 which was registered at Police Station Anandpur Sahib (Annexure P.2) the allegations were that Suresh Chander a resident of Agampur was working as Secretary of Agampur Cooperative Agricultural Society. There was a complaint that embezzlement of the funds of the society had taken place in the years 1978 to 1986. Shri R.S. Garg who was working as Additional Chief Auditor and Chief Vigilance Officer ordered re-audit of the accounts of the society. Amar Singh petitioner who was working as Joint Chief Auditor connived with the Secretary of the Society and withheld the order issued by Shri Garg regarding re-audit of the accounts. As a result re-audit of the of the society could not be conducted for a long time. During this period, the secretary of the society in connivance with Amar Singh destroyed the record of the society and some of the entries were tampered with. The evidence was wiped out to conceal the embezzlement. Similar allegations were made in the other two reports lodged at Police Station Noorpur Bedi and Police Station Ropar.

(2.) The petitioner averred that the allegations against him were false and baseless. He was working as a Joint Chief Auditor and he had neither stopped the re-audit nor he had the authority to do so. In fact a complaint was made by a person named Lt. Col. Mohinder Singh of village Sarthali which was marked to the petitioner for necessary action. The petitioner made enquiry and found that no person of the name of Lt. Col. Mohinder Singh resided in village Sarthali and he submitted a note to the Chief Auditor copy of which was annexure P-3. Re-audit order was withheld by the competent authority till it was ascertained as to who was the person who made the complaint. The Chief Auditor issued a letter to that effect on 4/2/1988 to Shri R.S. Garg, the then Additional Chief Auditor otherwise the Secretaries of the societies were not in any way connected with the petitioner. The Secretary was the custodian of the record and he was to arrange for its safe custody. Moreover, according to the instructions issued to the Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars of the Co-operative Societies duplicate records were to be maintained and a copy of the record was to be kept in the Central Co-operative Bank Ropar to which the societies in question were affiliated. The cases registered against him under these circumstances amounted to an abuse of the process of law, were mala fide and motivated. The main object behind the same was to harass the petitioner. In the reply filed by the respondent it was alleged that the petitioner entertained a representation made by Sub Inspector, Audit forwarded by Shri Amrik Singh, Inspector Audit, Cooperative Societies, Ropar directly, although immediate Officer at District level was Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies, Ropar. The petitioner dealt with that representation at his own level violating the normal channel of disposal of official dak and made a suggestion to the Chief Auditor for withdrawal of the order issued by Shri R.S. Garg for re-audit of the societies. It was at his instance that the re-audit of the societies was kept in abeyance and in the meantime the record of the societies was damaged so that there may not be detection of embezzlement.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the three cases were got registered against the petitioner as the petitioner was pressing for his promotion and some of the persons in the Department were annoyed with his conduct. Petitioners promotion was with-held inspite of the representation made by him, as a result, he had to file Civil Writ Petition No. 4247 of 1991 which was allowed and a direction was issued that case of the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Auditor w.e.f. 30/12/1988 and then to the post of Chief Auditor w.e.f. 30/12/1990. The learned counsel referred to copy of decision, Annexure P-1, vide which, such directions were given. It was further contended that inspite of directions issued by this Court, he was not granted promotion and the concerned persons started concocting allegations. He was again led to file another Civil Writ Petition No. 16083 of 1991. The Authorities were aggrieved due to filing of this writ petition and he was roped in three false cases. The allegations made in the First Information Report did not constitute any offence against the petitioner, even if the same were presumed to be true. The cases were registered with the sole object to harass the petitioner. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, contended that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had ordered re-audit of the three societies on receipt of a complaint that the Societies had committed irregularities and that some amount of the Societies had been embezzled. This order regarding re-audit was kept in abeyance on report made by the petitioner. The petitioner had entertained a complaint directly although he was not authorised to do so and then; he made a suggestion that re-audit order should be withheld. This suggestion was made simply to enable the offender to tamper with the record of the Society and when the re-audit was ultimately ordered, it became impossible as the record had either been tampered with or destroyed. The petitioner submitted an affidavit whereby he controverted the allegations made by the respondents that he entertained any representation forwarded by Amrik Singh, Inspector (Audit), in violation of the prescribed channel or he dealt with the same at his own level. He has further denied that he ever connived with the functionaries of the Society for the purpose of tampering or destroying the record of the Society. A perusal of the First Information Reports in all the three cases shows that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he withheld the re-audit order while working as Joint Chief Auditor and during that period, the Secretaries of the three Societies destroyed the record of the Societies and the record was no longer in auditable form. This allegation prima facie does not make out any case for an offence under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was not the person who stopped the re-audit. Annexure P-3 shows that under the orders of Chief Auditor, the petitioner made an enquiry in a complaint submitted by one Lt. Col. Kanwar Mohinder Singh, resident of Sarthali, and after enquiry, he found that no person by the name of Lt. Col. Kanwar Mohinder Singh resided in village Sarthali and the complaint was fictitious. The Petitioner suggested that Chief Vigilance Officer may be asked to investigate about the person who was behind that fictitious complaint. On the basis of this report, the Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, wrote a letter, Annexure P4, to Sh. R.S. Garg, AddI. Chief Auditor, withholding the reaudit order till it was found out whether person by name of Lt. Col, Kanwar Mohinder Singh was residing in village Sarthali, or the complaint was fictitious.