SHAHID ANIS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings initiated on first information report No. 350 dated June 9, 1980, registered at Police Station, Ambala Cantt, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections,161, 218 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered against the petitioner Shahid Anis. He was working as Administrative Officer with the Punjab Waqf Board. Shri Akhtar Hussain was the acting Secretary. In his place, the petitioner was appointed as acting Secretary vide resolution of the Board dated July 23, 1979. Shri Rahim Khan, one of the members of the Board, who voted against the petitioner being appointed as acting Secretary lodged the aforesaid report with the Police. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated November 17, 198O for commission of certain acts of irregularities etc. Smt. Shamsad Dar was the Chairman of the Board at that time. Subsequently the petitioner was again promoted as acting Secretary of the Board on May 9, 1981. The petitioner was also authorised to operate the accounts of the Board jointly. with the Chairman. In December, 1981 the Board was suspended by the Central Government. Shri Akhtar Hussain was appointed as Administrator of the Board and in June, 1982, Shri Rahim Khan was appointed as Minister in the State of Haryana. On coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail in the High Court vide Criminal Misc. No. 3859-M of 1987. On August 20, 1982 bail was granted. However, the same was cancelled on August 30, 1982. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court. He was directed to approach the High Court again for bail. The petitioner was allowed interim bail on January 12, 1983 by the High Court in Criminal Misc. No 160M of 1983. One of the allegations against the petitioner was that he had misused his powers by leasing out Waqf land for a long period without authority. A charge sheet was also served upon the petitioner on December 23, 1980 (copies Annexures P4 and P5). The statement of allegations is Annexure P6. The documents on which reliance was placed are mentioned in Annexure P7. A suitable reply was furnished to the charge-sheet and the petitioner was absolved of the charge framed on May 9, 1981 by the Chairman of the Waqf Board (copy Annexure P 8). By that time, the petitioner had no knowledge of registration of the case as aforesaid. It was thereafter that he moved for the anticipatory bail. As already stated above, the High Court passed order allowing bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on January 12, 1983. This order was addressed to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Ambala Cantt as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambala. In spite of that, the petitioner was, however, declared a proclaimed offender on January 21, 1983 vide order of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt (copy Annexure P10). Shri Yamin son of Mohd. Yusuf was cited as co-accused in the case registered against the petitioner. He was tried by the Special Judge and was acquitted on January 28, 1988. Copy of the judgment is Annexure P10. There were 8 witnesses cited in the report submitted to the Court whose names are given in paragraph 1 of the petition. These witnesses appeared against Yamin and copies of their statements are Annexures P13 to P20, A challan was presented in Court on September 24, 1985 and as already stated above Shri Yamin was tried. The grounds on which the petition has been filed are mainly to the following effect :

(2.) I have given due consideration to the aforesaid grounds and the arguments addressed by the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel representing the State.

(3.) IT has been argued that report under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, was not presented within three years from the date of registration of the case and on the stale allegations the should not be tried. This contention cannot be accepted 468 of Cr.P.C. prescribes limitation maximum of three years or filing reports under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in Courts in respect of offences providing punishment less than three years. On behalf Of the respondent State it was argued that the petitioner absconded and was not available for trial. This assertion was sought to be refuted on the ground that just before he was declared proclaimed offender, he had approached the High Court and obtained an order of bail. In my view no further comments in this respect should be made as limitation of three years for filing of report in Court, is not attracted to the case in hand. Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides sentence of seven years and the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. can be presented any time it is immaterial whether the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by the trial Court and the case proceeded only against the co-accused. Thus, contentions (iii) and (iv), referred to above, have no force.