It appears that the respondent applied in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing of the First Information Report on account of which challan companyld number be filed and it was only when the challenge to the First Information Report was repelled by the High Court that a challan was filed on August 28, 1985 In the meantime, the respondent retired as Superintendent, Directorate of Industries, Punjab, on September 30, 1983.
Mangal Singh Minhas, the respondent in Criminal Appeal Nos.
On the challan being filed the respondent again made an application in the High Court for quashing of the prosecution against him.
The aforesaid First Information Report was challenged by the respondent in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal miscellaneous No.
5837 M/85 on the ground that the same having been lodged about three years after his retirement and about six years after the event of purchase of sign boards in 1979 was in the teeth of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II and companysequently was liable to be quashed.
A First Information Report was lodged against the respondent on June 19, 1980.
The present appeals have been filed by the State of Punjab against the aforesaid orders passed on the application of Kailash Nath and Mangal Singh Minhas respectively.
In the year 1980 some companyplaints were received in the Department against the respondent pertaining to the purchase of the sign boards.
422 424 of 1988.
In the meantime, the respondent had retired from the post of Executive Engineer with effect from October 31, 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.1986 and 4.9.1986 from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl.
The requisite sign boards were purchased in pursuance of the aforementioned orders.
The plea raised by the respondent found favour with the High Court which relying on an earlier decision of that Court in Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab, 1986 P.L.R. 82 quashed the First Information Report by its order dated February 12, 1986.
423 24/1988, was posted in the Industrial Supply Section of the Directorate of Industries where various types of raw materials including wax and import lincences are dealt with.
Learned companynsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the view taken by the High Court was companyrect and in view of Rule 2.2 the First Information Report against Kailash Nath and the prosecution as against Mangal Singh Minhas were rightly quashed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
5837 of 1985 and Crl.
vigilance enquiry was instituted by the Vigilance Bureau to enquire into the companyplaints and ultimately a First Information Report was lodged on August 27, 1985 against the respondent under sub sections 1 and 2 of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4488 and 2993 of 1986 respectively.
R. Sharma, Kapil Sibal, M.C. Dhingra, T.S. Arora and Miss Kamini Jaiswal for Respondents.
PG NO 914 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. These appeals raise an identical question of law and can companyveniently be decided by a companymon order.
Kailash Nath, respondent in Criminal appeal No.
On various dates in that year, he placed orders for the purchase of sign boards which were required by the Department to avoid accidents on roads and for traffic safety.
S. Suri for the Appellants.
This prayer has been allowed by the PG NO 915 High Court by its order dated September 4, 1986 and the prosecution against the respondent has been quashed relying on the aforesaid decision in the case of Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab.
422/88, was working as Executive Engineer in Public Works Department in the State of Punjab in the year 1979.
