IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004
Date of Decision: February 19, 2007
Mangat Rai and another
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.M.C.Berry, Senior DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Misc.Nos.6251-M of 2004
(Mangat Rai and another v. State of Punjab) and 5719-M of 2004 (Girdhari Lal
v. State of Punjab). The facts are being taken from Crl.Misc.No.6251-M of 2004.
Petitioners, accused of mis-appropriating rice belonging to the
Government, are before this court seeking quashing of the FIR registered
against them. This is yet another case of rice scam, but is being given a slightly
different colour. The counsel has attempted to make the case of second FIR
and is asking for relief for the petitioners accordingly. It may appear so, but
deep analysis would belie this contention of the counsel for the petitioners.
Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004 :2 :
The facts, in brief, are that District Manager, Punjab
State Warehousing Corporation, Moga gave an application to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga for registration of a FIR
against few of its officers, working as Warehousing Managers. Shri
SS.Walia, Warehousing Manager, Badhni Kalan was one of the
accused named in this FIR besides some others. They were accused
of defalcation of wheat, paddy and rice amounting to Rs.3.80 crores.
Warehousing Manager is the Principal Officer of the Warehouse
and Punjab State Warehousing Corporation is a storage agency for
storing notified agricultural commodities in its warehouse. The
Corporation is not only responsible for preservation of its stocks,
accounts, but also for its accurate accounting. Even private parties
are entitled to store their products with the Warehouses of the
Corporation. Badhni Kalan office is the bulk depositor of Food
Corporation. Its Manager, S.S.Walia absconded from his duty in
May, 2000. This followed a check of this centre after breaking open
the locks by constituting a committee. The committee transferred the
charge of wheat, paddy, rice lying in the godowns and the plinths
after counting. As no records were available with the committee,
accordingly only the stock was counted as was physically available.
A certificate was obtained from the FCI, Badhni Kalan to know the
rice, which was lying at Badhni Kalan Warehouse and on the basis of
the same, shortage of 4779 bags of rice was detected. Besides
this, it was apprehended that there was likelihood of large scale
shortage of paddy and other food grains stored at the warehousing
godowns. On the basis of record, 18332 bags of paddy were with M/s
Nauthaira Food Products and 8655 bags of paddy with M/s Bansal
Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004 :3 :
Rice Mills. Quantity 3689 mts. paddy was claimed to have been
delivered to FCI by M/s Shanker Rice Mills, Badhni Kalan, about
which no record was available and accordingly this aspect was in
dispute. These shortages, as detected, were tentative in nature. It
was noticed that record at Warehousing Badhni Kalan was not
maintained properly and was incomplete. Milling Register was not
maintained on proper proforma. Shortages in rice stock were
detected for the crop years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, for which
S.S.Walia was held responsible. Overall shortage in wheat for the
year 1997-98 was also noticed. Certain other serious shortages were
also noticed in regard to release of stocks without any authorisation
and total loss to the tune of Rs.38069472/- was assessed. The
present FIR No.58 was lodged on 6.9.2001 against the petitioners on
the basis of an audit report dated 21.7.2000. It is alleged that the
paddy of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, as per the audit
report, is not traceable. The earlier FIR, referred to above, was
lodged against their officials in view of the detailed defalcation.
The case set up by the petitioners is that this FIR was
thoroughly investigated by S.S.P.Moga and it was found that the total
mis-appropriation has been done by Shri S.S.Walia, the then Branch
Manager. Said S.S.Walia had died in a road accident during the
pendency of investigation. It is further mentioned that the Millers, who
have been named in this FIR, had also filed quashing petitions when
it was stated on behalf of the prosecution that they were not required
and accordingly their petitions were disposed of. The petitioners had
also filed Criminal Misc.No.43964-M of 2000, which was ultimately
disposed of in this manner on 11.10.2001 being infructuous.
Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004 :4 :
Grievance is that after one year of the complaint, again impugned
FIR has been registered. Copy of this FIR has been annexed as
Annexure P-1. The earlier FIR No.66 dated 17.9.2000, which had
been registered basically against S.S.Walia, contained details of
mis-appropriation and other offences against him, whereas the
present impugned FIR is with the allegation that the Corporation had
shifted certain quantity of paddy purchased from Mandies at Badhni
Kalan and had stored the same with the Mills for milling under
supervision of late Shri S.S.Walia. This was for the crop year 1998-
99 when 18642 bags were stored. Out of this, 891.62 quintals of
rice were delivered short by the petitioners Mill. Another shortage of
2089 bags of paddy was noticed in the custody of the petitioners Mill.
These details were also found by the audit party, but the
representatives of the petitioners Mill refused to sign on the audit
report. Accordingly, allegation of mis-appropriation of paddy valued
Rs.1860542/- is made against the petitioners. It would, thus, be seen
that the present FIR cannot be considered to be a second FIR
pertaining to the same incident. The first FIR No.66 was against late
S.S.Walia for the shortages noticed in the warehousing godowns, for
which he alone was responsible. He was jointly responsible for the
paddy that has been stocked in the Mills and which the Mills were
required to return it back to the Government after milling. In case any
paddy, so entrusted, was not returned after milling or not fully
returned, the mills cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for the
same. These two allegations, as such, are entirely different and it
cannot be said that the two FIRs for the same incident have been
recorded. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to
Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004 :5 :
an order dated 20.7.2006 passed in Criminal Misc.No.38676-M of
2003 (Gopal Krishan and others v. State of Punjab) where an FIR
was ordered to be quashed on the ground that it was a second FIR of
the same incident. While so ordering, this court has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T.Antony Vs.
State of Kerala and others, AIR 2001 2637. These judgments would
not require discussion in detail as it is being held that the impugned
FIR is not the second FIR, as noticed above. In the passing, it may
be said that in the case of T.T.Antony (supra), it was also observed
that telegram or phone calls giving vague information could not be
treated as an FIR and only the information entered in the station
house diary, kept for the purpose by the in charge of the police
station would be an FIR as postulated under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In
any case, it is found that the impugned FIR is not the second FIR in
this case and no interference is called for. Even otherwise, it is
noticed that this rice scam in the State of Punjab was of multi crores
and multi facet. It is a case where number of Mill owners were able to
mis-appropriate rice valued at crores of rupees and now seeking
recourse to a quashing on the ground that this will only give rise to
civil liability. Number of such petitions have earlier been dealt and
dismissed by this court observing that civil and criminal liability would
be distinct and separate.
Accordingly, no case for interference is made out and the
present petition is, as such, dismissed.
February 19, 2007 ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh JUDGE
Criminal Misc.No.6251-M of 2004 :6 :