Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Embezzlement Of PSPCL Materials Worth Over Rs. 1.15 Crores: Anticipatory Bail Rejected: P&H High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant Judgemnent by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the anticipatory bail plea of Harkanwaljit Singh, involved in the misappropriation of materials from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), was dismissed. The case, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, highlights the stringent approach of the judiciary in cases involving substantial financial irregularities.

The FIR, lodged under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, brought to light the alleged embezzlement of PSPCL materials worth over Rs. 1.15 crores. The court, in its observation, noted that “prima facie, it is the petitioner who is liable for having defalcated material (stock and scrap) from the Central Store, Kotkapura to the extent of approximately Rs.1.15 crores.”

In the detailed judgement, Justice Bedi emphasized the gravity of the offence, stating that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for the recovery of misappropriated property and the logical conclusion of the investigation. The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the findings of an inquiry report and an affidavit from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which pointed towards the petitioner’s significant involvement in the misappropriation.

The ruling also referenced the Supreme Court judgement in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., underscoring the importance of considering the prima facie case against the accused in bail matters.

Representing the petitioner was Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, while the State of Punjab was represented by Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sehajbir Singh advocated for the complainant.

This decision marks a notable stance by the High Court in addressing cases of significant financial misconduct, sending a strong message about the consequences of such actions. The observations made by the court are specific to this anticipatory bail petition and do not influence the trial court’s adjudication, which will be based on the evidence presented.

Date of Decision: 07.11.2023

HARKANWALJIT SINGH  VS STATE OF PUNJAB     

Latest Legal News