Crl. Misc. No. M-35518 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-35518 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 12, 2011 Nachhattar Singh, C. T. A. .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two cases i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-35518 of 2011 filed by Nachhattar Singh, Chief Technical Assistant (CTA) and Crl. Misc. No. M-35682 of 2011 filed by Nachhatter Singh Dilbar, Godown Attendant – both seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.63 dated 23.10.2011, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Crl. Misc. No. M-35518 of 2011 2 In the godowns of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (in short – the Corporation), which were under the charge of both these petitioners as CTA and Godown Attendant, on checking, shortage of rice bags was found in some godowns, whereas excess rice bags were found in some other godowns. Counsel for the petitioner Nachhattar Singh, CTA contended that the stock in the godowns was not under the charge of this petitioner, who had to render only technical assistance. However, counsel for Nachhatter Singh Dilbar, Godown Attendant contended that key of the godowns remained with Nachhattar Singh, CTA and not with the Godown Attendant, who is therefore not responsible for variation in the stocks. Counsel for both the petitioners contended that there has been no loss to the Corporation because in all, there is net excess of over 1200 bags of rice. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Amrik Singh and Dharam Pal – Senior Assistant in the Corporation, admitted that overall, excess rice bags have been found in the godowns under the charge of the petitioners. State counsel, after seeking instructions, is unable to explain as to how excess rice bags were found. Similarly, counsel for the petitioners are also unable to explain the existence of excess rice bags in the godowns of the Corporation. I have carefully considered the matter. Neither the petitioners nor the State is able to explain the Crl. Misc. No. M-35518 of 2011 3 existence of such large quantity of excess rice bags in the godowns under the control of the petitioners. It may be mentioned that State counsel contended that both the petitioners are responsible for the stocks in the godowns in question. The matter is very serious because apparently, there has been something seriously wrong even if the stocks are not short over all, but are in excess. The petitioners are not explaining the existence of excess stocks of rice bags in such large number. Learned counsel for Nachhatter Singh Dilbar, Godown Attendant, at this stage, contended that excess stock existed because Food Corporation of India sent back rejected stock of rice. This contention would rather further damage the case of the petitioners because the same was not accounted for in the accounts of the Corporation. It would also depict that excess stock found in some godowns could possibly be for this reason, but it would further depict that the stocks found short in some godowns had been pilfered and embezzled by the petitioners. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed, without meaning to express any opinion on merits of the case. December 12, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE