OMPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P:C., petitioner seeks to quash FIR No. 112/4/4/2002, Police Station, District Anti Corruption Bureau, Bikaner.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned FIR, which has been registered against ten persons. It is alleged that under the Scheme of improvement in science education at school level for the Session 1988-1989 and 1989-90, the Education Department sanctioned 349.51 lacs. Large number of purchases were made during the year 1988-89 and 1989-90. In the Central Accountant General Report (in short 'CAG Report') 1993-94, certain adverse observations were made regarding the said purchases. Thus on 25/8/1995, a Committee was constituted to study the adverse observations made by the CAG in its report. However, the Committee did not submit its report, therefore, on 2/11/1996, another Committee headed by Special Officer, Primary and Secondary Education, was constituted. The Committee submitted its report on 31/12/1997. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Education Department at the relevant time. It is alleged that he verified the bills submitted by M/s. Scientific Corporation, Jaipur irrespective of the fact that the said Firm was not in existence, as the same was dissolved about seven years back.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. S.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that petitioner was transferred from the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Department of Education to the Command Area Development, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna as Chief Accounts Officer vide order dtd. 4/6/1990. Pursuant to the transfer order, he had given the charge to one Devilal Joshi. He had nothing to do with the supply of goods or with the verification of bills but he was to sign and verify the bills sent to him by the higher officers or the officer in the field. It is further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the superannuation age on 31/8/1996. His pension case has been settled and he is leading a retired life. He came to know on 4/4/2002 that an FIR has been registered against him for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(c)(d)(2), Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sec. 420, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B Indian Penal Code. While he remained in service upto 1996, the CAG Report was submitted in the year 1997. There was no adverse observation made by the CAG in its report against him as he was, at no stage, asked to submit any explanation. It is further submitted that R. 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (in short 'RSR') prohibits institution of a judicial proceeding against a retired person in respect of cause of action which took place more than 4 years before such institution. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the matter is under investigation and it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere for quashing the FIR.