Criminal Revision No. 757 of 2001 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 757 of 2001 Date of Decision: 6.2.2009 Gursharan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Present: Shri Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional AG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the challenge is to the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 3.3.2001, declining an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 245and 246 Cr.P.C. for his discharge. The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the petitioner while working as a Senior Branch Officer, Markfed during the relevant period, purchased wheat from different grain markets. The said wheat was stored in Kaccha open space for further delivery to the Food Corporation of India. It is alleged that the said wheat was not under the custody of the petitioner nor he was responsible for the good health of the foodgrains and for further despatch to the godowns of the Food Corporation of India. Though the self life of the stock was 9 months, but the same were kept for five years in the Kaccha open space. It is also pointed out that one of the co-accused Gurmeet Singh in the same FIR, filed a petition under Criminal Revision No. 757 of 2001 (2) Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the FIR was quashed qua him vide order dated 15.2.1991. The petitioner also filed a petition for quashing of the FIR before this Court. When the said petition came up for hearing before this Court on 17.9.1998, while dismissing the petition, the petitioner was given liberty to file an application under Sections 245 and 246 Cr.P.C before the trial Magistrate. In pursuance of such opportunity, the petitioner moved an application, which has since been declined by the learned Magistrate. It could not be disputed that the present petitioner and Gurmeet Singh are the employees of the Markfed. Gurmeet Singh was allegedly working in the field as against the petitioner, who was in the Branch Office, but the fact remains that the FIR against the co-accused on account of misappropriation of the foodgrains stands quashed by this Court. This Court in Gurmeet Singh's case, has found that the prosecution could not be launched against the accused on the same set of facts, which were subject matter of Award of the Arbitrator dated 13.8.1990. The learned trial Court on 12.4.2001 framed charge against the petitioner for an offence under Section 408 IPC on the ground that the petitioner was entrusted with the wheat weighing 1423.27 quintals during the year 1984-85 and 2658.14 quintals in the year 1985-86 and that the petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust. The learned trial Magistrate in the impugned order has held that the Arbitration proceedings related to the incident, but the aspect of replacing of 1439 bags of fair quality wheat with those of inferior quality of industrial use was never discussed by the Arbitrator nor the same was taken up for consideration. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner for discharge was dismissed. No material distinction could be pointed out by the learned Criminal Revision No. 757 of 2001 (3) counsel appearing for the respondent-State in respect of the case against Gurmeet Singh with that of the petitioner. In fact the charge framed is not in respect of replacement of wheat. Even, the FIR does not support such case. In fact, the charge framed is not to that effect. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Magistrate has gravely erred in law in not discharging the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.3.2001 is set aside. The petitioner stands discharged of the charges framed against him. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 06-02-2009 ds