Skip to content


Bhag Singh Vs. the State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Cril. Mics. No. 10400-M of 1992

Judge

Reported in

1994CriLJ184

Acts

Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 5(1) and 5(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482

Appellant

Bhag Singh

Respondent

The State of Punjab

Appellant Advocate

M.R. Midha, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

A.G. Masih, Adv.

Disposition

Petition dismissed

Excerpt:


- orderj.b. garg, j.1. bhag singh kanungo of jagraon, district ludhiana, has moved the present petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing of first information report no. 262, dated 21-9-1987 under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act pending in the court of special judge, ludhiana.2. the allegations against the petitioner were that he received an illegal gratification from kuldeep singh complainant for making a verification report on the basis of a will for the sanction of mutation on 21-9-1987. it has been alleged that the occurrence is more than five years old and there was inordinate delay in presentation of the challan and the trial and that it should be quashed.3. at one stage the petitioner was discharged on 30-1-1989 for want of sanction. however, the sanction has been granted by the collector on 16-7-1991 and now a challan is pending in the court of special judge, ludhiana.4. in para 8 of the reply to the present petition, the state of punjab has explained that after the framing of the charge, the special judge was on leave at one stage and thereafter he was succeeded by another special judge on 23-12-1991.....

Judgment:


ORDER

J.B. Garg, J.

1. Bhag Singh Kanungo of Jagraon, District Ludhiana, has moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report No. 262, dated 21-9-1987 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the court of Special Judge, Ludhiana.

2. The allegations against the petitioner were that he received an illegal gratification from Kuldeep Singh complainant for making a verification report on the basis of a will for the sanction of mutation on 21-9-1987. It has been alleged that the occurrence is more than five years old and there was inordinate delay in presentation of the challan and the trial and that it should be quashed.

3. At one stage the petitioner was discharged on 30-1-1989 for want of sanction. However, the sanction has been granted by the collector on 16-7-1991 and now a challan is pending in the court of Special Judge, Ludhiana.

4. In para 8 of the reply to the present petition, the State of Punjab has explained that after the framing of the charge, the special Judge was on leave at one stage and thereafter he was succeeded by another special Judge on 23-12-1991 and subsequently this second special Judge was also transferred and the case was received in the court of Shri S. S. Tiwana, where it was fixed for 6-11-1992. Thereafter, the proceedings were stayed under the orders of this Court because it appears that an interim order was challenged.

5. On behalf of the State, it has been pointed out that there was no intentional delay on the part of the prosecution at any stage. The conclusion is that there is no good ground for interference. The present petition is dismissed with the direction that the trial be expedited by the special judge and it should be concluded by giving preference to this old case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //