Punjab: High Court orders probe into 20-year delay in excise case

Punjab: In a strong attack on institutional inertia, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that a police officer cannot be harassed for a two-decade delay in a criminal case in which a chargesheet has been filed but charges have not been framed. This was after Justice Jagmohan Bansal directed the Mohali District and Sessions Judge to determine the status of the FIR in the case and hold an inquiry to fix responsibility. Justice Bansal, before ordering the release of all retirement dues including pension and gratuity withheld since 2018 on the pretext of pending FIR, said that the fault lies with the police officers, public prosecutor or the court staff. “The petitioner retired in July 2018. He is not able to get his retirement amount due due to the FIR. He cannot be blamed for not deciding the FIR. The fault lies either with the police officers or the public prosecutor or the court staff. In this backdrop, this court is of the view that the respondent-state has no right to withhold the amount of the petitioner due to pendency of the FIR,” Justice Bansal said. The directions were given on a plea filed by Inderjit Singh for release of his amount. Among other things, his counsel argued that he was acquitted in a case of cheating and criminal conspiracy registered at a police station in Jalandhar in June 2004 under sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC.

But his retirement amount was withheld due to another FIR registered in June 2004 under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act. The petitioner argued that the challan in the FIR under the Excise Act was presented before the trial court on February 8, 2005 and more than 20 years have elapsed since then. It also said that the police authorities themselves had referred the case to the Excise and Taxation Department for compounding. But the department clarified that the case was never compounded there. Justice Bansal said, “This court gave several opportunities to the respondent-state to confirm the current status of the FIR. They claim that as per the record, they have the photocopy of the challan produced in the trial court, but they have not been able to produce the record from the trial court to prove that the challan was actually filed and the court proceeded with the matter.” Terming the continued withholding of retirement dues as improper and without authority, the court directed the state government to release the pending amount, but gave two months’ time to the department to produce proof of fault, if any, in the said FIR. The court made it clear that if within two months the department is able to prove that the petitioner has been convicted, the status of retirement dues will be reconsidered in accordance with law.