AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was chargesheeted vide order dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 413, 467, 471/120-B IPC. Thereafter, the chargesheet was amended vide order dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-6) and additional offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') and Section 167 IPC were added in case arising out of FIR No.43 dated 5.4.2003 registered at Police Station City Faridkot. In the instant petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.43 dated 5.4.2003 (Annexure P-1), chargesheet dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) and amended chargesheet dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-6).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the police authorities received a complaint regarding wrongful registration of vehicles of PB- 04G series. At that point of time, petitioner was working as a Clerk at DTO office Faridkot and the petitioner was alleged to be a party to the registration of lot of vehicles of PB-04G series on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The said vehicles were being used at various places under the registration certificates issued from the registration office where the petitioner was working. After investigation, the police submitted challan against the petitioner. It has also come during the investigation that the petitioner in connivance with various persons has registered the stolen vehicles and as many as 87 bogus registration certificates have been issued pertaining to vehicles registered under PB- 04G series. In pursuance of the chargesheet, petitioner was chargesheeted under Sections 413, 467, 471/120-B IPC. However, after almost completion of the trial, learned Special Court found that his learned predecessor had framed the charge only qua the above-said offences whereas in the evidence it has come that the petitioner was working as a clerk in the transport office, as such he was a Government employee. Being a public servant, he is prima facie liable for the commission of offence of criminal mis-conduct of a public servant in discharge of his official duties punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act as well as for framing incorrect documents, which is punishable under Section 167 IPC. Accordingly vide order dated 1.2.2011, the charges were ordered to be added and additional charges were framed on the same day vide Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4. On the same date also the statement of the accused was recorded vide Annexure P-5 wherein petitioner did not plead guilty rather claimed trial. Another statement of the petitioner as well as the prosecutor was recorded wherein the prosecutor stated that they do not want to recall and lead any evidence in pursuance of the added charges.

(3.) Similarly, statement of accused was recorded that he did not want to recall the witnesses for further cross-examination. All this has happened on one date. Now, petitioner is before this Court with a grievance that he has not been afforded adequate opportunity of defending his case and as such his right has been prejudiced which would result into miscarriage of justice.