STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case under sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at Police Station Nangal against one Sohan Singh, Excise Inspector on the statement of Tarsem Lal, proprietor of Sharma Beauty Center, Anandpur Sahib wherein it was alleged that Excise Inspector demanded illegal gratification and an amount of Rs. 3000/-was recovered from his possession when a raid was conducted. Subsequently, it was alleged that Jagdish Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer had either himself forged the signatures of Tarsem Lal on an assessment order regarding sales tax or got the signatures forged from someone else. Apprehending his arrest, Jagdish Singh filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail. Application was allowed and the Investigating Officer was directed not to arrest Jagdish Singh in connection with First Information Report No. 55 dated 31.7.1991. Aggrieved by this order dated August 14, 1991 passed by Shri P.K. Jam, Special Judge, Ropar, the State of Punjab filed the present application under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to Jagdish Singh. It was alleged that the learned Special Judge had not exercised his discretion properly arid he had even failed to impose the mandatory restrictions required to be imposed in case of allowing anticipatory bail, which resulted in hindrance of proper investigation.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.

(3.) The only allegation against the petitioner was that signatures of Tarsem Lal complainant had been forged at point A on the assessment order and the same were either forged by Jagdish Singh or he got those forged from someone else. He was to be interrogated in the connection. In view of the allegations, I dont think that it is a case where the learned Special Judge had not exercised his discretion properly.