LAWS(P&H)-1988-9-87

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SAIN DASS

Decided On September 05, 1988
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
SAIN DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order five Criminal Revision Nos. 213 to 217 of 1987 are being disposed of. All these cases were initiated on registration of one FIR No. 155 dated 5.6.1974, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409/420/467/468/471/120 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar. On the basis of the said report separate challans were presented covering different periods. Most of the accused in all these cases are common. Sain Dass is one of them.

(2.) SAIN Dass was employed as a clerk in Government Higher Secondary School, Jandiala. The other accused were employed in the Treasury. Sain Dass used to prepare fictious pay bills of the staff of the school under forged signatures of the Principal. The other accused, who were employed in the treasury, used to pass the bills with the result that Sain Dass used to daraw amount of the bills from the Treasury which amount used to be mis-appropriated by all the accused. These amounts cover the period starting from Aug. 1970 to May 1974. The present cases cover five different periods during the above period. In each case the amount withdrawn is different. Special Judge, Amritsar on November 6. 1986 passed similar orders in these five cases discharging the accused persons as the cases were instituted more than four years from the commission of offence. The orders were passed on the basis of decision of this Court in Kailash Nath v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 108 (P&H) : 1986 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 257 and Des Raj Singal v. State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 66 decided by M.M. Punchhi, J.

(3.) SHRI Bachittar Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab, the petitioner, has argued that the decision of Punchhi, J., in Des Raj Singla's case supra needs reconsideration as the same does not lay down the correct law. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this contention cannot be accepted.