Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 46
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
M.S.Nagra
Versus
State Of Punjab Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. 6141-M of 1993,
Decided On : JANUARY 8, 1997
Inordinate delay in investigation and prosecution, coupled with the lack of corroboration of the testimony of the giver of a bribe, can lead to the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - DELAY IN INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION - UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF GIVER OF BRIBE - RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - INORDINATE DELAY CAUSING PREJUDICE TO ACCUSED - FIR QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board, was accused of accepting illegal gratification for the release of tubewell connections. An FIR was registered in 1976, but the challan was not put in until 1993, after a delay of 17 years. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no corroboration to the statement of the one who allegedly gave bribe money to the accused. After a lapse of 17 years, the accused would be put to serious handicap so far as their cross-examination is concerned. The court also held that it would not be possible for a court to convict the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of the giver of a bribe, who is an accomplice and requires to be corroborated in material particulars.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR should be quashed due to delay in investigation and prosecution? 2. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the giver of a bribe is sufficient to convict the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab Appellant v. Kailash Nath, Respondent, AIR 1989 S.C. 558, which held that it is always open to quash a prosecution on the ground of unexplained inostensible delay in investigation, and prosecution on the facts of a given case, because right to claim of speedy trial is inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, holding that it would be a futile exercise to try the accused after a lapse of 17 years of its registration.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. Shri M.S. Nagra now Executive Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as Board) through this Crl. Misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of complaint/FIR No. 196 dated 30.9.1976 Annexure P-1 and all consequential proceedings arising in relation thereto.
2. Facts which have given riseto this petition are as follows :-
"Petitioner was posted as S.D.O. Rural Electrification Mansa during the period 15.5.1975 to 23.8.1976. During that period, the electrification of the rural area was undertaken. In the electrification scheme, tubewells were being installed at various places as per the plans submitted by residents of villages. His job was to go through the test report submitted by an applicant before releasing the tubewell connection. After making sure that the test report was genuine, he was to issue Service Connection Order (SCO) to the Line Superintendent for the release of the connection. Line Superintendent and Lineman were to release the connection as per seniority of the applicants. During his posting as S.D.O., Rural Electrification, Mansa all the SCOs were issued by him according to the seniority and no connection was given out of turn. In July 1976, the Vigilance Department of the Board carried out general checking of the tubewell connections released by the S.D.O.s of the various districts to find out if the S.D.Os had released electric connections to the tubewells out of turn and in disregard of seniority of the applicants. In Mansa area, checking of electric connections was done by the Vigilance Department of the Board from 22.7.1976 to 24.7.1976 and thereafter from 3.8.1976 to 11.8.1976. Vigilance Inspectors S/Shri Jaswant Singh Jeji and Kulwant Singh gave report that during checking, some persons had alleged that he (petitioner) had taken illegal gratification before releasing the tubewell connections. In their report, they named those persons who had alleged that he had accepted illegal gratification before the release of tubewell connections. In pursuance to that report, FIR No. 196 dated 30.9.1976 was registered at PS Sardulgarh (Annexure P-1) against him and some other persons i.e. the Line Superintendent and the Lineman that they had accepted illegal gratification for the release of tubewell connections. In consequence of the registration of FIR No. 196 (ibid), he was suspended by the Board on 16.8.1976. He was reinstated on 28.3.1977 with continuity of service. According to him, he was reinstated because the department felt convinced that no irregularity had been committed by him in the release of tubewell connections. He was allowed anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 1.12.1976 Annexure P-2. In the year 1981, he was asked by CIA branch, who was investigating this matter, to submit his statement vis-a-vis the allegations made against him. He submitted the statement refuting all the allegations mentioned in the FIR. It is further averred that the FIR was founded on false statements. said to have been made before the aforesaid Vigilance Inspectors as for instance, Gurcharan Singh son of Balwant Singh had allegedly stated before the CIA Inspectors that he had paid bribe of Rs. 1600/- for released of tubewell connection 5-6 days before the release of tubewell connection. Tubewell connection was release to him on 26.11.1976 while he (petitioner) had relinquished the charge on 23.8.1976 and in the month of November 1976, Shri R.K. Garg was S.D.O. R.E., Mansa. He produced affidavits of about 5 persons who figured in the FIR swearing money had ever been demanded by him or was ever accepted by him for the release to tubewell connections. He submitted in his statement to the CIA that he was innocent and the FIR is false. Annexure P-3 is the reply submitted by him to CIA. After he had submitted his reply, nothing was heard by him and he continued to discharge his duties in the Board. CIA sent a list of persons who had alle
