CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 3434 of 2012 on 29 August 2002

1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

Present:Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

Crl. Misc. No.64985 of 2012

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for thereasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 155 daysin filing the criminal revision petition is condoned.Crl Revision No.3434 of 2012

The instant petition has been filed against the order dated28.2.2012 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC and Sections 212, 216 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.22 dated 29.8.2002

under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC was registered at PoliceStation Vigilance Bureau, F.S.I., Mohali against the petitioner. Thepetitioner remained absconded for 7 years. However, he surrendered beforethe Ilaqa Magistrate on 17.10.2011 and was remanded for one day policeremand. During the interrogation the petitioner submitted that major part ofhis income accrued as interest, loan, gifts and the shares sold by hisdaughter, istridhan of his wife and sale of gold by her and salary of his sonwere not included in his income. Furthermore, 1/3[rd] share of the purchaseamount of shop contributed by Balbir Kaur, mother of the petitioner, wasalso included in his expenditure and his expenditure and income were thus,wrongly assessed to be disproportionate to known sources of income of thepetitioner. However, in the subsequent proceedings after joining theinvestigation, these sources were revealed as a result of whichsupplementary statement under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was submitted.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that thedocuments and the statements forming basis of report under Section173(8)Cr.P.C. are required to be taken into consideration while framing charges inview of the law laid down in Rama Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 2009(2)RCR (Crl.) 571 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if thepolice has submitted a challan after investigation in Court, still the policecan further investigate the matter but police has no right to re-investigate thecase. The contention of learned counsel is that present is a case of furtherinvestigation and not fresh or re-investigation, therefore, in view of afore-mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

I have considered the contentions of Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the furtherinvestigation can be carried out by the police either at its own or afterseeking permission from the court. In the present case, FIR was registeredin the year 2002; challan was presented on 24.8.2004 after thoroughinvestigation; the petitioner evaded the process of law and has surrenderedonly on 17.10.2011 when the present Government headed by Shri ParkashSingh Badal came into power. At earlier point of time, the petitioner wasOSD with Shri Badal and relating to that period, the case ofdisproportionate assets has been registered against the petitioner. It wouldbe pertinent to mention here that the entire investigation carried out formore than two years ranging from 2002 to 2004 has been wiped out inreport under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. submitted now as the petitioner wasinterrogated and joined investigation only for one day, apparently, may beunder the pressure of the government as at present also the government isbeing headed by the then Chief Minister, Shri Parkash Singh Badal, withwhom the petitioner was OSD at the relevant time. With regard to thedocuments photostat copies of which have been placed on the record ofsupplementary challan submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the court hascome to a conclusion that these documents cannot be treated as a gospeltruth at this stage in order to give benefit of discharge to the accused.Accused is not entitled to take shelter under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the time ofcharge. Ipse dixi of the police is not binding on the trial court. Even otherwise, at the time of framing of charge, the court is not supposed tominutely examine the documents and their veracity. In State of Orissa v.Debender S. Pandhi, 2005(1) RCR (Crl.) 279 it has been specifically laiddown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the time of framing of charge,the accused has not right to produce any material and accused cannot seekthe aid of Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of charge. If at all thepolice is to further investigate the matter, then generally permission of thecourt is required. The court has come to a conclusion that there is sufficientevidence against the petitioner for framing charge and he cannot bedischarged merely on the ground of report submitted under Section 173(8)Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further specificallystated that charge under Sections 212 and 216 of the IPC has been framedagainst Raj Kumar Gupta, Sanjeev Kulshreshtha, Yashpal Dhawan,Harjinder Singh, Devinder Singh and Kanwaljit Singh Sandhu. They hadharboured the petitioner and committed offence under Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988.I have considered the contention of learned Counsel for thepetitioner.

There are specific allegations and evidence that the petitionerhas been harboured by the above said persons when he remained absconded.There is categoric evidence with regard to this against the petitioner as wellas other co-accused, therefore, charge has been rightly framed against themand their trial has been ordered to be conducted together with the petitioner.Trial court is not required to discuss all the evidence in detail while framing Crl. Revision No.3434 of 2012 (O&M)

charges.

No other point was urged.

In view of what has been stated above, present petition is dismissed.

November 06, 2012. kadyan

[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge