Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Chander vs State Of Haryana on 22 July, 2013
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
Crl. Misc. M-7494 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. M-7494 of 2012
Date of Decision : July 22, 2013
Jagdish Chander
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr Divya Sarup, Advocate
Ms Priyanka Dalal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
Mr Yogender Singh Nehra, IPS, Superintendent of Police,
State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon
in person.
---<<><---
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking quashing of FIR No.10 dated 5.3.2004 under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 409, 471 and 120-B IPC and 13 (1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at State Vigilance Bureau (H), Gurgaon and all the proceedings arising therefrom.
According to the FIR, the petitioner was posted as a Land Valuation Officer and had sanctioned loans for landscaping and plantation of trees by forging proper utilization certificate as neither the loanees had levelled their land nor planted the trees. In the report submitted by him, the petitioner had shown the work of landscaping and plantation of trees.
In the present petition, the petitioner has averred that though the FIR was registered in the year 2004 for the acts of omission and Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.28 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. M-7494 of 2012 -2- commission pertaining to the years 1998-2001, the case remained at the stage of investigation and no progress was achieved therein. Extreme mental stress and strain of prolonged investigation by the State Vigilance Bureau has wrecked the entire career of the petitioner. There was no justification with the Investigating Agency to prolong the investigation any further. By not completing the investigation, the right of the petitioner for speedy investigation and trial stands violated and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pankaj Kumar vs State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 3077 and Vakil Prasad Singh vs State of Bihar, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1822, criminal proceedings pending against him are liable to be quashed.
Reply has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, wherein it is stated that enquiry No.9 dated 16.4.2003 Narnaul was received and investigated by Inspector Yad Ram, SVB (H), Narnaul, in which allegations were that in Mahendergarh District, huge money as bribe was given to the employees of the Land Mortgage Bank for releasing the loans for landscaping of land and planting of trees in their land whereas the borrowers had neither levelled their land nor planted the trees. The Bank Officers as well the Land Valuation Officers in their reports had shown the work of landscaping of the land and planting of trees. This was going on for the last three years. On enquiry, it was found that Mahendergarh, Kanina and Nangal Chaudhary PARD Banks in the years 1998-2001 gave loans for plantation of kikkar and safeda trees to the farmers in their waste land, but none of them planted any kikkar or safeda tree nor was there any assessment from the Department of Forest or Horticulture as per the Rules. For up-keeping of the trees, guidelines were Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.28 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. M-7494 of 2012 -3- also to be obtained. During enquiry, it was found that from September, 2001 to 23.10.2004, the petitioner was posted as Land Valuation Officer, PARD Bank, Mahendergarh. One Banwari Lal son of Lekh Ram r/o village Nangal Mala applied for a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- in the year 2000 for planting kikkar trees in his waste land from the PARD Bank, Mahendergarh. On the recommendation of the petitioner, Hoshiar Singh, the then Manager, issued first instalment of Rs.60,000/- to aforesaid borrower-Banwari Lal. Without utilizing the amount of the first instalment of Rs.60,000/- the borrower got the second instalment of Rs.40,000/- on 6.1.2000 by preparing forged and bogus utilization certificate. Further, by issuing proper utilization certificate of this instalment, the aforesaid Manager then issued the third instalment of Rs.20,000/- to the borrower. The borrower did not get the kikkar trees planted for which the loan was taken. He did not attach any bill for purchasing the plants so as to show the proper utilization of the loan amount. In this way, the petitioner and the then Manager by misusing their official position have given benefit to the borrower on the basis of wrong and false utilization certificate. During the investigation, offences under Section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC were found to have been prima facie, committed and, accordingly, case FIR No.10 dated 5.3.2004 was registered under the aforesaid offences at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon.
On 18.2.2013 when learned State counsel could not apprise the Court about the status of the FIR in question and no mention had been made about the status of the FIR in the aforementioned reply, another opportunity was granted to file a detailed status report. Despite the same, the requisite Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.28 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. M-7494 of 2012 -4- status report was not filed and, accordingly, on 30.4.2013, this Court was constrained to direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to appear in person, alongwith the relevant record and also to file the status report of the investigation of the case, in the meantime. Pursuant to the same, Sh. Yoginder Singh Nehra, IPS, Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon has appeared in person and also placed on record the status report, wherein it is mentioned that the investigation of the case was conducted by the various Investigating Officers as allegations in question were lengthy in nature. After completion of the investigation, challan was sent to the Vigilance Headquarters for checking and approval vide memo No.1939 dated 25.7.2011, but the same was returned with the direction to collect further evidence and proceed accordingly. It has also been stated that Inspector Ram Kishan was conducting investigation of 5 cases, whereas 7 more enquiries are pending with him. Due to shortage of the manpower, he was also attached with the other Enquiry Officers. Besides, he was attached in an important enquiry relating to the sale of land which was lengthy in nature and due to this, the Investigating Officer could not appear before this Court. However, the challan has since been finally submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Narnaul and the same is now pending for arguments on charge for 24.7.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy trial as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and, therefore, FIR registered against him and the final report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C be quashed. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vakil Prasad (supra) and Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.28 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. M-7494 of 2012 -5- Pankaj Kumar (supra).
It is true that the FIR against the petitioner was registered on 5.3.2004 and only recently, the police has presented final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. which is now pending before the Special Judge, Narnaul for arguments on charge, but keeping in view the scale of the crime committed by the petitioner and similarly posted Land Valuation Officers, who had sanctioned loans for landscaping and plantation of trees by forging proper utilization certificates, it cannot be said that the prosecution was sleeping over the matter for the last more than nine years and has now presented the final report against the petitioner and the others. From the status report submitted by Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon, it is made out that the allegations levelled against the petitioner and others were lengthy and after completion of the investigation, final report was submitted to the Vigilance Headquarters vide memo No. 1939 dated 25.7.2011 but even the same was not accepted and directions issued for collecting further evidence and proceed accordingly. Even Inspector Ram Kishan, who was conducting investigation against the petitioner was looking after seven more enquiries. Further, due to shortage of manpower, Said Inspector Ram Kishan was attached with other Enquiry Officers.
After going through the status report submitted by Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon, this Court is of the considered view that the enquiry against the petitioner and others being lengthy in nature, it was next to impossible for the prosecution to complete the same and then submit its final report. That being the explanation regarding delayed conclusion of the enquiry, it cannot Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.28 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. M-7494 of 2012 -6- be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy trial stands infringed. The judgments in the cases of Vakil Prasad Singh supra) and Pankaj Kumar (supra), thus, do not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
The petition is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
(T.P.S.MANN)
July 22, 2013 JUDGE
Pds.
Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt
2014.02.28 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh