In CRM-M-8979-2023 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC upholds order rejecting application for discharge of Cop alleged to have misappropriated more than 700 boxes of liquor
Justice Aman Chaudhary [31-05-2023]

Read Order: Dinesh Kumar @ Teji Versus State of Punjab

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, June 1, 2023:  The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition, filed under Section 482 of the CrPC assailing the order vide which the application moved by the petitioner for discharging him in a case registered under Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 188 IPC and Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act was dismissed.

The petitioner, who is a Sub Inspector in the Haryana Police, was in the docks for having misappropriated more than 700 boxes of liquor recovered by him from a truck and having sold them to a person by the name of Sandeep. Initially FIR was registered under Sections 383, 337, 304-A IPC as a truck had been found in an accidental condition. 

Subsequently on the complaint of the present petitioner, an FIR was registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 61 of the Excise Act, 1914. In the said FIR, it was stated that a bill bearing builty and a permit were found in the cabin of the aforesaid accidental truck. 

As per the builty, total 1700 boxes of liquor make ‘Karezy Romio’ was found in the backside of the said truck out of which most of the boxes had been damaged due to the accident. As per the FIR, efforts were made to contact the Excise Inspector for getting information regarding the recovered liquor but he could not be contacted and even the mobile numbers written on the bills and permit were not reachable. 

It appeared that the documents had been prepared by the truck driver Naresh Kumar in connivance with the owner of the truck. Ultimately, it was found that infact more than 700 boxes of liquor had been sold by the present petitioner to one Sandeep and consequently FIR was registered under Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 188 IPC and Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act.

Vide order under challenge, the application for discharge moved by the petitioner was dismissed and charges were framed. 

The Bench referred to the judgment in Onkar Nath Mishra and others Vs. State, the Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to see if the material and documents placed before it disclose ingredients of the offence and that at this stage, strong suspicion would justify the framing of charge. 

The Bench opined that there were extremely serious allegations against the petitioner who is member of a disciplined force and was alleged to have misappropriated more than 700 boxes of liquor recovered from a truck and is alleged to have further sold them off. 

“These facts would have come in a disclosure statement only because the person from whom ultimately the liquor was recovered namely Sandeep disclosed during interrogation that he had purchased the liquor from the present petitioner. There is, therefore, a strong suspicion which arises against him necessitating the framing of charges”, the Bench held.

The impugned order was passed as far back as in May, 2022 and no revision petition was preferred by the petitioner against the said order and the petitioner had chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after almost one year of the impugned order having been passed.

Noting that there was no ground to discharge the petitioner, the Bench held that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in rejecting the said application for discharge, filed by the petitioner and framing the charges against him. Thus, the High Court dismissed the petition.