SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the information given by Deputy Superintendent of 'Police Paramjit Singh, Fazilka, First Information Report No. 145 dated 26 -10.1987, under sections 409/380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station Fazilka. The information given was that a special informer had come to him with the information that the store of Food and Supplies Department, Fazilka (briefly the a Department) situated in the premises of M/s Sandeep Rice Mills, Fazilka has bags of wheat stored therein and that Inspector, Food and Supplies of the Department and Subhash Chander, Sub -Inspector were taking the bags of wheat after committing theft, in his tractortrolly, in connivance with Sandeep Kumar, proprietor of the aforesaid Mills. The police people were asked to recover those wheat bags after arranging an immediate raid arid that he was also reaching the spot. After registration of the case, Sub -Inspector Babu Singh, along with Assistant Sub -Inspector Bant Singh, Head constable Gurbachan Singh, and constables Balwinder Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Raj Narain Pal Singh and Jagdip Singh, left the Police Station in Government Jeep PUW 7905 for conducting the raid and for recovery. Special information reports were sent through wireless, as also by messenger constable Balram. The alleged bags were recovered.

(2.) THE petitioners, along with two others, filed 4 applications separately of which notice was given to the State and on 31 -10 -1981 Shri Dalip Singh, District, Food and Supplies Officer was present in Court. He made a statement before the, Court that no theft of the property of his Department had taken place from the above said godown, in his premises of M/s Sandeep, Rice Mills. The petitioners also placed on record a certificate by the Food and Supplies Officer, Fazilka that wheat lying in the said premises was 5904 bags and this was the only stock on 24 -10 -1987. Thereafter there is no arrival and departure of wheat bags. All these calculations demonstrate that no theft had taken place. The lower court remarked as follows : "I wonder how the case has been, registered against these persons. It was duty of the police to first enquire from the department whether any theft has taken place or not and when the custodian of the property says that no, theft bas taken place, it is not understandable why the case was registered and why these persons were arrested."

(3.) KEEPING in view the statement of Shri Dalip Singh, District Food and Supplies officer and the certificate given by the Department that no theft had taken place, I am convinced that no offence was committed by the petitioners and keeping the First' information Report pending will not serve any purpose. Rather, it may cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners and pendency of the First Information Report may be abused by some one inimically disposed towards the petitioners. In the result, the First Information Report is quashed. The petitioner stands disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed