Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB versus MANINDER SINGH

Decided
19 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 760 · 1996 INSC 903

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

It is astonishing and we are aghast to find that the State Government legitimised corruption and decided to shield the officers who have committed 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 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 fundamental principles of criminal law and the settled legal position. When. notice was issued, the action of the State Government compounded the flagrant miscarriage of justice. But when we have pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the charge-sheet has been filed and 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 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 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.

pp. 760–761, margin F

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

p. 761, margin C