SURINDER SINGH ARORA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sarvshri Surinder Singh Arora and Malkiat Singh Parihar seek the quashment of FIR No. 104 of 1979, registered at Police Station Sub Division No. 6, Jalandhar, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 471-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as well as the resultant proceedings therefrom. During the pendency of this petition, Shri Surinder Singh Arora (petitioner) died. Therefore, vide order dated July 30, 1992, this Court ordered that this petition has become infructuous as all the criminal proceedings pending against him had already abated on his death. Now this petition survives on behalf of Sh. Malkiat Singh Parihar petitioner only.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case figuring in the FIR (copy Annexure P-1) are that Sh. Surinder Singh Arora, while working as Executive Engineer (Civil) at Civil Works Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Jalandhar, in connivance with other co-accused, including Sh. Malkiat Singh Parihar petitioner, during the span of 1-1/2 month from 1.4.1978 to 15.5.1978 purchased goods worth Rs. 8,38,569.04 and made payments to the contractors for supplying the material. Out of this material, some material was sub-standard, some of it was not even required and the supply of sometimes was imputed to some contractors, who have not even supplied such articles and that the material was purchased on a very high price. List of the articles of inferior quality purchased from different contractors was also given in the FIR. Thus, it is maintained that all these persons had connived themselves for causing wrongful gain to themselves and loss to the Board. Taking this information reliable, the case for the above referred offences was registered against the petitioners and others by Shri Balwant Singh, D.S.P. Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Jalandhar on 26.4.1979. After completion of the investigation, challan was submitted in the court on 6.1.1990 i.e. after a lapse of 11 years, the trial Court is yet to frame the charge, when the petitioners approached this Court through this petition for quashment of the FIR and the resultant proceedings therefrom.

(3.) IN the return filed by Shri Shangara Singh Inspector, Vigilance Bureau Punjab, Jalandhar, it is maintained that the petitioner along with eighteen other co-accused is involved in the same case and after protracted investigation, nine challans were prepared against the petitioner and eighteen other persons. The delay in concluding the investigation was explained in para 5 of the return as under :