SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Cr. Revision Petitions No. 77/95 and 91/95. Both the revision petitions are preferred against the order of learned Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jodhpur whereby he has directed framing of charges under Secs. 420, 468, 511 read with Sec. 120, IPC and Sec. 5(l) (c) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Both the petitioners at the relevant time were Assistant Engineers. It is alleged that Shyam Lal during the period 16.8.1982 to 31.8.1982 was Assistant Engineer in PWD, Banner. He was incharge of the work which was being done as famine relief. Muster roll Nos. 323119-323333 were issued for the purpose. It is alleged that the names of labourers who did not work were mentioned and an attempt was made to get payment to other persons vice them. Such muster rolls were attested by the accused petitioner Shyam Lal. It is further alleged that the payment could not be made as the same was to be done by the revenue authorities as the matter came to light prior to payment.

(2.) Similarly, in Pushpendra Singh's case it is alleged that he was Assistant Engineer of PWD Famine Relief Division II, Banner during the period 1982-83. He was incharge of the work of construction of gravel road from Der to Garnnor. It is further alleged that certain muster rolls bearing No. 323576-82 were issued. Names of some labourers who did not work were mentioned in them and their attendance was marked. It is further alleged that some labourers whose names were mentioned in 'ghatna bahi' of patwari had gone even to Pakistan yet an attempt was made to draw a sum of Rs. 8186/- on the attestation of the accused petitioner Puspendra Singh. The payment could not be made as it was to be done by the Revenue Department and the matter came to light before payment could be made.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Judge should not have passed an order to frame charges against the accused petitioners as they are not responsible for maintainance of muster rolls. According to him it is the duty of overseer who is under the Rules responsible to maintain a diary showing the muster rolls checked by him and the results thereof. He also submitted that if any discrepency is found in muster rolls, it should be investigated and if the discrepencies are serious, they should be reported to the Assistant Engineer with copy to Executive Engineer. This work is to be done by overseer. He further submitted that the duties of the Assistant Engineer are to check all the attendance and that all the work is being done as per instructions given from time to time in the circulars issued by the Chief Engineer and that the Assistant Engineer must see that the muster rolls are passed in the Division well in time and the wages are disbursed by the revenue authorities by the time prescribed. He further contended that the Government had issued a letter on 26.12.1981 to the effect that the payment of wages to labourers for the work done for famine relief by PWD or other departments will be made by the revenue authorities. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order of the learned Special Judge should be set aside. Even otherwise, he contended, that the matter may be dropped as the incident is said to have taken place some time in 1982 and charge sheet was filed as late as in the year 1991 and prosecution proceeded to split the charge sheet as late as in the year 1994 and ultimately charges have been framed against the petitioners in the year 1995. The lame prosecution in which the charges have been framed against the petitioners nearly 13 years after the alleged offence, is nothing but violation of fundamental right of speedy trial under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and the proceedings should be quashed.