Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 November, 2011
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision : November 04, 2011
Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010
Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia
.... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
..... RESPONDENTS
Crl. Misc. No. M-33938 of 2010
Dr. Dalbir Singh Dhillon
.... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
* * *
Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate,
with Ms. Vidushi Gaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate,
for Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
* * *
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
By this order, I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-33938 of 2010, where the prayer is for quashing of Kalandra dated 20.03.2006 (Annexure P-8) submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patiala under Sections 182, 211, 193, 194 and 195 IPC as also the summoning order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P-10). The facts have been taken from Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 for convenience for disposal of the cases.
Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 2 An alumni meet was held in the Punjab School of Management Studies of Punjabi University, Patiala on 30.10.1999. Dr. K.C.Singhal was the head of this Department. In order to organize the meet, Dr. K.C.Singhal collected funds from various firms including advertisements for the purpose of publication in the souvenir. Total expenditure amounting to ` 1,52,764/- was incurred. Petitioner was Vice Chancellor of Punjabi University. While he was performing his responsibilities as the Vice Chancellor, a complaint was presented to him pointing out certain discrepancies and irregularities apart from procedural lapses, which were alleged to have been committed in accounting for the income as well as incurring the expenditure from the alumni meet by Dr. K.C.Singhal. On receipt of the said complaint, petitioner, who was the Vice Chancellor of the University, constituted an enquiry, which had the following members, (1) Dr. Kuldeep Singh Dheer (Dean, Academic Affairs), (2) Dean Research, (3) Dean, Students (4) Director, Research and Development, (5) Prof. Satpal Nalwa (Law Dept.) and (6) Finance Officer. Dr. Dalbir Singh Dhillon (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-33938 of 2010) was Dean, Students at the relevant time and, therefore, was the member of the Committee, so constituted. The matter was enquired into by the Committee and on enquiry, found certain discrepancies, details of which were appended as Annexure-A, which were a part of the enquiry report which included recommendation dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure P-1). In this Annexure-A, 7 procedural lapses and irregularities were pointed out. As the discrepancies and irregularities related to the funds, which were received but had not been accounted for involving firms, which did not fall within the domain of the University, it was recommended in the report that the case be entrusted to the Vigilance Department of the Government for enquiry. The report Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 3 was received by the Vice Chancellor, who as per the recommendation of the committee, forwarded it to the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala for giving effect thereto. Registrar of Punjabi University, Patiala addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary (Home Affairs), Government of Punjab, Vigilance Department, Chandigarh dated 16.01.2001 (Annexure P-2).
On 25.01.2001, Meeting of the Syndicate was fixed where at Agenda Item No. 30, the issue with regard to illegalities, irregularities and lapses in connection with the funds raised and expenditure done etc. for the Alumni Meet on 30.10.1999 by the Punjab School of Management Studies of the University was listed. The matter was taken up for discussion in the meeting, when a decision was taken therein that as the matter involved criminal liability as well, especially when, there was some embezzlement involved, FIR needed to be lodged for necessary action immediately. The resolution apart from taking a decision to lodge the FIR, proceeded further to decide that Dr. K.C.Singhal be removed from the Headship of the Department. Copy of this decision of the Syndicate dated 25.01.2001 has been appended as Annexure P-4. As per the decision of the Syndicate, Registrar, Punjabi University, submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patiala (Annexure P-5), which was registered as FIR No. 88 dated 27.01.2001 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Sadar, Patiala (Annexure P-6). Before the challan could be presented, Dr. K.C.Singhal expired on 23.03.2005. On investigation, the offences alleged to have been committed by Dr. K.C.Singhal, according to the investigation report, were not made out. Accordingly, the report was submitted before the Special Judge, Patiala on 13.09.2005, on which date, the said report Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 4 was accepted by the Court observing therein that Dr. K.C.Singhal has expired on 23.03.2005, because of which the proceedings against him stand abated and accordingly, the file was consigned to the record room.
Proceedings on the assumption that the cancellation report stands accepted and relying upon the investigation report, Kalandra was prepared against petitioners Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia and Dr. Dalbir Singh Dhillon along with other members of the Committee, who had recommended for sending the case to the Vigilance Department for enquiry. This Kalandra was prepared on 20.03.2006 (Annexure P-8) but was presented in Court on 22.03.2006. On receipt of this Kalandra, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, issued notice to the petitioners and others for 23.05.2006 vide order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P-10). It is at this stage that the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the Kalandra as also the summoning order.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the Vice Chancellor of the Punjabi University, Patiala for almost three years from 1999 to 2002. He has acted only in his official capacity when he received a complaint with regard to the irregularities and financial discrepancies, which were alleged to have been committed by Dr. K.C.Singhal during the holding of Alumni Meet on 30.10.1999 in the Punjab School of Management Studies of Punjabi University of which he was the Head. The petitioner had not taken any steps on his own but to find out the truth had constituted a Committee to look into the allegations made in the complaint. The Committee, so constituted, consisted of senior members of the faculty and responsible officials of the University, who, on considering the complaint and on enquiring into the matter, recommended for entrustment of the case to the Vigilance Department as Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 5 they were of the view that there appears to be some irregularities in the accounting and procedural matters and since the firms, which were involved in such transactions, were outside the purview and control of the University, the appropriate agency for enquiring into the matter would be the Vigilance Department. This recommendation was put to the petitioner, who, as per the recommendation, proceeded to direct the Registrar to take appropriate steps. It is the Registrar, who had, as a matter of fact, addressed letter to the Vigilance Department on 16.01.2001 (Annexure P-
2). He submits that thereafter, the Syndicate, in its meeting held on 25.01.2001, had considered the agenda, which related to the irregularities, illegalities and lapses in connection with the funds raised and the expenditure done etc. in the Alumni Meet on 30.10.1999 by the Punjab School of Management Studies of the University, which was duly considered by the Syndicate and there it took a decision to register the FIR and on such decision being taken, the Registrar proceeded to file a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patiala. No role can be said to have been performed by the Vice-Chancellor and Dean Students respectively in their personal capacity. Role, if any, was in their official capacity as the Vice-Chancellor of the University and Dean Students respectively. If that be so, the Court could not take cognizance of the offences, for which they had been summoned without taking sanction from the competent authority as per Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His further contention is that in any case, the offence under Section 182 IPC is not made out as no information, which was believed by him to be false, was knowingly given by the petitioner to the Investigating Agency as is being alleged. Other offences under Sections 211, 193, 194 and 195 IPC are not at all made out and the allegations would not fall Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 6 within the ambit of those Sections, for which the petitioner has been called upon to face trial.
Attacking the summoning order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P-10), counsel for the petitioner contends that the order does not even indicate that the Court had gone through the Kalandra, which was submitted by the Station House Officer in Court. While issuing summons, it has not even mentioned as to how and what were the bare facts on which the alleged ofences committed by the petitioner, if any, were made out or could be said to have been committed by him or was involved in commission thereof. He, accordingly, prays for quashing of the Kalandra as also the summoning order.
Counsel for the respondents have submitted that since Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia was the Vice Chancellor of the University, therefore, he was responsible for the registration of the FIR, which was, on investigation, found to be false. His further submission is that as the information was found to be incorrect and the cancellation report has been accepted by the Special Judge, Patiala, Kalandra presented against the petitioner is fully justified and is in accordance with law. On this basis, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition. Counsel for the respondents could not rebut the contention, as raised by the counsel for the petitioner as regards the order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, summoning the petitioner.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their assistance.
The facts, as have been elaborated herein above, clearly spell out that both the petitioners have acted in performance of their official capacity. None of the alleged acts was committed by them in their Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 7 personal capacity and, therefore, in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences, for which they have been summoned by the trial Court vide order dated 22.03.2006. On this basis alone, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot sustain.
As regards the offences, which are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the Kalandra submitted against them as prepared on 20.03.2006 by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patiala (Annexure P-8), it is apparent that the information, which has been given by the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala, was based upon the information which is available with the Enquiry Committee, as is apparent from the recommendation made by the Committee in its report dated 16.01.2001. The Committee itself was not sure about the correctness or otherwise of the complaint, which was referred to it by the Vice-Chancellor for enquiry as in that report itself, the Committee had mentioned that as the agencies and the firms involved, for which the money has been received and appears to have not been accounted for, were outside the purview and control of the University, the matter needed enquiry by some outside agency, which, according to the Committee, Vigilance Department would be the appropriate authority to look into the matter. The committee did not recommend the registration of the FIR as such but had only recommended an enquiry into the matter so that the truth could come out. The matter was thereafter, on the recommendation of the Committee, sent to the Vigilance Department by the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala, on 16.01.2001 to the Principal Secretary (Home Affairs) Government of Punjab. It is thereafter, when the Syndicate met on 25.01.2001, while dealing with the agenda item relating to the illegalities, irregularities and lapses in Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 8 connection with the funds and expenditure done etc. for the Alumni Meet on 30.10.1999 by the Department of School of Management Studies of Punjabi University, it took a decision that an FIR be got lodged in the matter for necessary action immediately. This decision was further taken, as is apparent from the minutes of the meeting which has been appended as Annexure P-4, to ensure an uninfluenced investigation. The decision, thus, was of the Syndicate and for that, the Vice-Chancellor cannot be held responsible alone.
Similar is with the decision with regard to the Committee members, who had enquired into the complaint referred to by the Vice- Chancellor, as they had not recommended the registration of the FIR nor have they given a finding that the funds, which have been received or not received and accounted for the outside firms, were in fact embezzled by Dr. Singhal. In the light of the above, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 182 IPC, which requires that if a person gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him or to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of the person. This information, as is apparent, was not given by the petitioners, which they believe was to be false and knew of it as the matter was being enquired into and as they were not sure about that they had recommended consideration by the Vigilance Department. As such no mens rea could be attributed to any of the petitioners.
As regards the offences under Sections 193, 194 and 195 are concerned, those provisions would not be applicable to the case in hand as Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 9 these offences itself speak for themselves, which are committed during judicial proceedings, which stage had not come. Section 211 IPC, in the light of the above, is not made out against the petitioners as there is no false charge of offence made by them against Dr. Singhal with an intent to injure a person.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 355 has held that offence under Section 182 IPC is distinct from the one under Section 211 IPC though the latter is more serious and may include the offence under the former Section. The Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 IPC on a complaint in writing of the Police Officer by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 195 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. But it would virtually lead to the circumvention of the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) if the proceedings under Section 182 can continue where the offence disclosed is covered by Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, the Kalandra dated 20.03.2006, which was filed on 26.03.2006, cannot sustain.
That apart, order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P-10) really depicts the casual approach with which the Court had proceeded to issue summons without even realizing that a person, who is being summoned, will have to face the rigmarole of the criminal proceedings and the trial.
The order passed by the Court reads as follows:-
" Present: APP for the State.
Presented today. It be registered. Notice
to accused be issued for 23.05.2006.
Sd/-
A.C.J.M."
Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 10
Not much is required to be said thereafter as is apparent from the order. The Court had not even bothered to go through the Kalandra, which has been submitted and merely on the presentation thereof, registered the same and issued notice to the accused, which is in total violation of the judicial discipline which requires all orders to be reasoned and justifiable. At least bare minimum facts, on the basis of which a person is called upon to face trial, must be mentioned apart from giving a prima- facie opinion with regard to the involvement of the person, who is summoned to face trial for the offences, for which he has been summoned or he is alleged to have been committed, the order is lacking on these basic requirements. The order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, cannot sustain.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Kalandra dated 20.03.2006 submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patiala as also the summoning order dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure P-10) along with all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
November 04, 2011 JUDGE
pj
Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision : November 04, 2011 Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 Dr. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS Crl. Misc. No. M-33938 of 2010 Dr. Dalbir Singh Dhillon .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Vidushi Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
* * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) By this order, I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-33938 of 2010, where the prayer is for quashing of Kalandra dated 20.03.2006 submitted by the Station House Offic (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) November 04, 2011 JUDGE pj Crl. Misc. No. M-29314 of 2010 and connected case 12