STATE OF PUNJABversusMANINDER SINGH

A                              STATE OF PUNJAB
                                          v.
                               MANINDER SINGH

                                AUGUST 19, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

           State Government-Office,-Misappropriation of public funds
    by-F.l.R.-Order of High Court quashing FIR-Petition by State-State fail-
    ing to produce charge sheet and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.-Direc-
C   tion by Supreme Court-Consequently charge-sheet prepared but Govemment         ~-

    taking a decision not to proceed with matter-State Counsel stating that he
    does not wallt to proceed with matter as per the instructions of the Govem-
    ment- petition filed by State dismissed-Conduct of State Govemment in
    shielding the co1rupt officers strongly disapproved.

D         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
    tion (Crl.) No. 2129 of 1992.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.91 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 4471-M of 1989.
E         R.S. Suri for the Petitioner.

          K.K. Mohan for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

F          It is astonishing and we are aghast to find that the State Government
    legitimised corruption and decided to shield the officers who have com-
    mitted misappropriation of public funds to the tune of Rs. 1.61 crores as
    culled out during investigation. It is obvious from the record that the
    Government wants to hide the persons and shield the officers responsible
G   for committing misappropriation. This petition was filed against the order
    of the High Court quashing the F.I.R. filed against the respondent. The
    High Court based its conclusion on a noting made by an officer that no
    action was needed. The order of the High Court is contrary to the fun-
    damental principles of criminal law and the settled legal position. When.
    notice was issued, the action of the State Government compounded the
H   flagrant miscarriage of justice. But when we have pointed out to the counsel
                                         760
                     STATE v. MAHJNDER SINGH                         761

for the petitioner as to whether the charge-sheet has been filed and A
directed them to produced the charge-sheet and statement under Section
161, Cr.P.C. from November 30, 1995 despite adjournment of the case time
and again to produce charge-sheet filed in the trial Court, they failed to
produce the same. So sensing some foul play somewhere, by order dated
April 4, 1996, this Court directed the Chief Secretary to have an enquiry
conducted in this behalf and to submit a report. In response thereto, pat B
come on the back of the accused and from the record it would be clear
that the charge-sheet, though was prepared by the officer, after thorough
investigation, the same did not breath life since the Government did take
a decision no to proceed with the matter. Therefore, the decks have been
cleared in the case for the corrupt officers, who had swindled the public C
money and misappropriated it, to escape from clutches of law. Counsel for
the State states before us that he does not want to proceed with the matter
as per the instructions of the Government.

      The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, we record our deep
anguish and strong disapproval of the conduct of the Government in          D
shielding corrupt officers who committed misappropriation of public funds
from being prosecuted and punished according to law.

T.N.A.                                                Petition dismissed.