RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the AddI. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in Criminal Revision No.6 of 1992, dated 10.12.1993.

(2.) A challan has been filed by the Police against the present petitioner and others in the year 1990 for the offence under sections 467/468/ 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. According to the case of the prosecution, the 1st accused is the Inspector, Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Dhupsari and the 2nd respondent is a Salesman of the Co-operative Agriculture Service Society, Dhupsari and accused No.3 is the Secretary of Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Dhupsari while the 4th accused was the Sub Inspector of the said society and the 5th accused is the Bank Manager of Dhupsari Co-operative Agriculture Service Society and the 6th accused is the Loan Cle* of the said Society. According to the persecution, all the accused connived and they issued fertilizer to 14 fictitious persons in the year 1984 and that the entires regarding the membership of these 14 persons were manipulated and therefore, the accused committed offence under Sections 467/468/471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala vide order dated 2.12.199 1 discharged all the accused on the ground that arbitration proceedings were launched and award has been passed against the persons responsible and therefore, the prosecution cannot be launched against the accused. Aggrieved by the said order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, the State preferred an appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur who by his order dated 10.12.1993, allowed the appeal and directed the learned magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the above revision petition.

(3.) According to the prosecution, the accused issued fertilizer to the persons who were not members of the Co-operative Agriculture Service Society, Dhupsari and their thumb impressions were forged on the application forms and no proceedings took place for sanctioning the loan to the said 14 persons and therefore, all the accused connived to defraud the Society. It is to be seen that at the hands of the petitioner proceedings were initiated. The matter was subject matter of a departmental enquiry. In the enquiry, it was found that the signatures of petitioner Rajinder Singh were also forged on the application forms and the photographs on the identity cards of the members, It is further found in the enquiry that when the petitioner who is the Inspector of the Society came to know about certain irregularities in the functioning of the Society, he sought further advance and reported the matter to his higher authorities. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against in a criminal prosecution when the departmental authorities themselves found that the petitioner is not guilty of any irregularity and when he himself brought irregularities of the Society to the notice of the authorities.