Crl. Rev.No. 75 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev.No. 75 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 24,2011 Jugraj Singh .................................................................. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........................................................ Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate with Mr. Daman Dheer, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab. ... Ritu Bahri,J. This criminal revision is for setting aside the charges framed vide order dated 25.10.2008. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted in the Cooperative Agricultural Service Society, Bilaspur (for short `the society') vide order dated 24.7.2001. This order was to be made applicable with effect from 1.8.2001. FIR No. 25/06 dated 22.5.2006 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and under Sections 13(1) (d) and 13(2) P.C. Act, 1988 was registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. In the FIR, Crl. Rev.No. 75 of 2009 [ 2 ] Mohinder Singh, Secretary and Jugraj Singh, Inspector, have been named. It is alleged that they prepared wrong jamabandis of 17 persons, fixed their credit limits and got sanctioned loan from the Bank. A wrong builty was prepared for transporting fertilizer from Moga to Bilaspur in the year 2000- 2001. Rs.3110/- were withdrawn for purchase of furniture but there was no entry in the record. An inquiry was also initiated against the Secretary of the Society and Mohinder Singh, Secretary, was held responsible for the alleged irregularities. A punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with effect from 1.9.2004 was awarded to Mohinder Singh. In the inquiry report (Annexure P1), there is no association of any official of the Cooperative department including the petitioner in the process of fixing of credit limit of the members. The FIR has been registered on the basis of some reliable sources by the DSP, Vigilance Bureau. Mr. Rajiv Raina, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the period mentioned in the FIR relates to the year 2000-2001. The petitioner having joined at Bilaspur on 1.8.2001 cannot be held liable for any offence committed prior to that date. A perusal of the order dated 25.10.2008 goes to show that while referring to the alleged misconduct and illegality, reference is being made to the year 2000-2001. Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the State, has not been able to dispute the factual position that the petitioner was posted in Bilaspur on 1.8.2001 and that the dispute relates to the year 2000-2001 when the petitioner was not in office. The factual position has not been disputed and therefore as per the complaint no case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is made out against the petitioner Jugraj Singh. Crl. Rev.No. 75 of 2009 [ 3 ] The presence of petitioner when the alleged incident occurred has not been established as per the record produced by Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, appearing for the State. Learned counsel, on the basis of record, was not able to make out the case that the petitioner was in the office when the alleged incident took place and so continuance of the trial in the FIR qua petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 25.10.2008 is quashed qua the petitioner. 24.1.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE