HARJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are Inspectors in the Food and Supplies Department, Patiala. THE police report submitted against them before-the Court suggests that these Inspectors along with others got loaded four-truck-loads of wheat totaling 500 quintals from Government go- down and while those were in process of crossing the Punjab/Haryana border intercepted presumably for an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Later it came to light to the investigation that there was no restriction on the movement of wheat, but the said wheat was representing the measure of excess in godowns occurring by the. natured factor of moisture content. In this manner, the petitioners were accused, of having committed theft of wheat as also its criminal breach of trust, as the excess wheat belonged to the Government even if the measure of excess was due to natural causes of moisture content. Charges against the petitioners were framed by the learned Magistrate for offence under sections 300/411/409, Indian Penal Code and they are standing trial. THE petitioners have now approached this Court under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the First Information Report primarily on the ground that in the First Information Report, their names do not figure and further in the police report no mention has been made as to who has accused them of having stolen wheat and to have caused its criminal breach of trust. It is contended on their behalf that the Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, has not come forward as a complainant. It is further contended that when none is aggrieved, the offences against the petitioners cannot be tried.

(2.) THE Court takes cognizance of offences and not of offenders. If the Court comes to the opinion that an offence of theft and/or criminal breach of trust has been committed qua a certain property, then it is within its domain to take cognizance and try the offence and determine as to who is the offender. At the stage in which the case is going on, it is comparatively of little value to determine whether any person or department is aggrieved against the petitioners. In the larger content, it is the State, which is aggrieved. One of its paramount duty is the detention of crime and prosecuting the offenders It follows there from that the prosecution against the petitioners is being carried on the pursue that objective. In any case, the present is not a case in which this Court should interfere at this stage, when facts are yet to be determined and sifted by the Court to come to a conclusion. No case for interference has been made out. This petition20is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.