HC orders probe into 20-year delay in excise case

Coming down heavily on institutional inertia, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a police official cannot be made to suffer for a two-decade delay in a criminal case, where chargesheet was filed but charges not framed.

The assertion came as Justice Jagmohan Bansal directed Mohali District and Sessions Judge to conduct an inquiry to determine the status of the FIR in the matter and fix responsibility.

Justice Bansal observed the fault lay either with the police authorities, public prosecutor or the court staff before ordering the release of all retirement dues, including pension and gratuity, withheld since 2018 on the pretext of the pending FIR.

“The petitioner virtually retired in July 2018. He is unable to get his retirement dues because of the FIR. He cannot be held guilty for non-adjudication of the FIR. The fault lies either with the police authorities or public prosecutor or court staff. In the backdrop, this court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-state has no authority to withhold the petitioner’s dues on account of FIR’s pendency,” Justice Bansal asserted.

The directions came on the petition filed by Inderjit Singh for the release of his dues. Among other things, his counsel contended that he was acquitted in an FIR in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case registered in June 2004 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC at a police station in Jalandhar. But his retirement dues were withheld due to another FIR also registered in June 2004 under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act.

The petitioner submitted 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 had elapsed since. It was added that the police authorities had themselves forwarded the matter for compounding to the Excise and Taxation Department. But the department clarified the case was never compounded at their end.

“The respondent-state was granted multiple opportunities by this court to verify present status of the FIR. It is claiming that as per record, they have photocopy of challan which was presented before the trial court but are unable to collect record from the trial court to support that challan was actually registered and court proceeded with the matter,” Justice Bansal asserted.

Terming the continued withholding of retirement dues as unjustified and without authority, the court directed the state government to release the pending amount, but gave the department a two-month window to produce proof of guilt, if any, in the said FIR. It made it clear that if, within two months, the department is able to establish that the petitioner was held guilty, the status of retiral dues would be reconsidered in accordance with law.