Delhi High Court
Pushkar Mal Verma vs State (Cbi) on 1 June, 2012
Author: M.L. Mehta
Bench: M.L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2691/2011
Date of Decision: 01.06.2012
PUSHKAR MAL VERMA .... PETITIONER
Through: Mr.Manohar Lal, Advocate.
Versus
STATE (CBI) ......RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr.Narender Mann, Spl. P.P.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 23.7.2011 of framing of charges against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 IPC & 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act.
2. The facts in brief are that during the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was posted as District Primary Education Officer at Mahendergarh when the Government of Haryana through its Department of Directorship of Education made appointment of 3206 JBT teachers in different districts. Earlier, the process of appointment was proposed to be conducted by Haryana Public Service Commission, but during the relevant period, this was transferred to the Department of Directorate of Primary Education. In pursuance thereto, District Level Selection Committees were formed and the petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the Selection Crl.M.C. 2691/2011 Page 1 of 7 Committee of the District Committee of Mahendergarh. The allegations were that the selection of 3206 JBT teachers was made on the false interview list of 18 districts including that of Mahendergarh. The offences came to be unearthed when Sanjiv Kumar, State Project Director was given additional charge of Director, Primary Education from his predecessor Rajni Sekhri Sibbal because of the later having not toed the lines of the authority in changing the list. Ms.Sibbal had kept the result of interviews received from various districts in sealed cover and under the lock and seal in her office almirah and formed a committee empowered to break open the said lock and seal and check the papers and prepare the final merit list. It was because of this that Sanjiv Kumar was given the additional charge of Director, Primary Education in her place. The allegations are that the Committee formed by Ms. Shekhari Sibbal was changed and another set of list by changing the interview marks was prepared by the 18 District Level Selection Committees including the Committee headed by the petitioner.
3. In the second lists which were prepared, there were large number of manipulations. The investigation revealed that lists which were kept in the sealed envelopes were removed by Mr.Sanjiv Kumar even before the fraudulent list was prepared about a year later. The results were ultimately declared on the basis of false interview marks of the fraudulent list prepared in the month of September, 2000 which was in variance with the original list prepared in December, 1999 and kept by Ms.Shekhri in the sealed envelopes. The subsequent fraudulent lists were prepared and signed by the Chairpersons of the District Level Committees including the petitioner for the district of Mahendergarh. This all came to be Crl.M.C. 2691/2011 Page 2 of 7 revealed when Sanjiv Kumar being under constant harassment of the government later filed a Writ in the Supreme Court wherein he filed an affidavit detailing the sequence of events and the circumstances leading to preparation of fraudulent list. It was on these allegations that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the petitioner and 61 co- accused persons including the then Chief Minister O.P Chautala and his son Ajay Singh Chautala and his political Secretary Sher Singh Badshami under the aforesaid provisions of IPC and P.C.Act.
4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on three counts. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner's first submission was that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail on parity with accused No. 19 Brij Mohan, who was similarly placed and was Chairman of the Selection Committee of the district of Faridabad. Secondly, his submission was that as per Rule (2.2b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol.II), no judicial proceedings could be instituted against the retired public servant if the cause of action has arisen more than four years before such institution. The learned counsel relied upon the case of Desraj Singhal Vs. State of Punjab (82) PLR Vol. LXXXIX-1986-1). Thirdly, learned counsel submitted that there was no allegation of demand of bribe money by the petitioner nor there was any acceptance of bribe or pecuniary gain by the petitioner and so no case against him was made out under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Prosecutor for CBI and perused the record.
Crl.M.C. 2691/2011 Page 3 of 76. Having gone through the impugned order, it is noted that all the aforementioned submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner and which have been dealt with by learned Special Judge in his order very specifically. With regard to the plea of the learned counsel seeking parity with accused Brij Mohan arrayed as accused No. 19, it may be noted that this aspect was dealt with in detail by the learned Special Judge in Para 55 of his order. The case of Brij Mohan was entirely distinguishable in that he was cited as a witness by the prosecution as well as the accused. The submission made on behalf of Brij Mohan was that great pressure was put upon him to sign the forged list but, he somehow managed to indicate the same by writing words "U.P" at different places on the list. Having gone through the record with regard to Brij Mohan, learned Special Judge observed as under:
"I find merit in the submissions of A-19. I am of the opinion that since CBI has charge sheeted him as an accused, it is to be seen as to whether prima facie a case against him is disclosed or not. It is true that signatures of A-19 find place on the Supreme Court List as well as on the Directorate List. Perusal of the Directorate List would show that upto 8 pages this accused has written word "U.P." under his signatures justifying his statement that he had not signed the list voluntarily or intentionally. Putting of word "U.P." i.e. Under Pressure is an indication that he was forced to sign the forged list. His testimony u/s 161 CrPC as PW-13 throws light as to how it is to be decided as to which list is the forged one. He has pointed out the forged list by the manner of the range of interview marks given as well as from the word "U.P." written by him under his signatures. By signifying that he was signing under pressure, he clearly disassociated himself from the conspiracy. He has left his imprint of protest against all the doings of other accused persons while putting his signatures and thereby stood apart. These circumstances clearly show that A-19 was not part of the conspiracy and had not signed willingly rather he signed under Crl.M.C. 2691/2011 Page 4 of 7 protest. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prima facie case against A-19 is not disclosed. Hence, I discharge him. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. However, would remain an important witness on behalf of the prosecution and throw light on the entire transaction".
7. In view of the above finding of the fact noticed by the learned Special Judge and to which, there was no controversion by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not see any force in the submission of the learned counsel seeking parity with Brij Mohan.
8. The plea regarding the petitioner being protected under Rule (2.2b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol. II) was also presented before the Special Judge in the same way as it is presented before this Court. It is yet again clarified that the application of these rules is only limited to withholding the pension of a Govt. servant if he is found guilty of misconduct during his tenure of service. This rule does not cast any bar on the criminal proceedings instituted against a retired Govt. servant charged with corruption. The present proceedings are not barred by the law of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner in the year 2010 also do not come under the purview of discharge of official duties, but are rather offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act committed by him in his individual capacity after he became functus officio with the finalization of results of the interviews in the year 2009. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim any protection under the rules. Further, the present petitioner is facing serious charges of corruption as opposed to the allegations of misconduct as in the case of Deshraj Singhal Crl.M.C. 2691/2011 Page 5 of 7 (supra).The reliance on Desraj Singhal is highly misplaced as the present case is clearly distinguishable on facts.
9. Regarding the plea of lack of demand and acceptance of any bribe or pecuniary advantage by the petitioner, the submission of the learned Prosecutor was that there was sufficient material on record to show that some percentage of money was offered to Ms. Rajni Shekhri Sibbal on telephone for changing the list and the fact that the list was forged by giving jobs to favourable candidates was itself the proof of pecuniary advantage having been given to the selected candidates. It was also submitted by the learned Prosecutor that otherwise also, there could not have been any occasion or reason for the accused persons to have manipulated and prepare a forged list if there was no pecuniary advantages to be gained by them, which may not be open, but hidden and of different types. It was submitted that in any case, for the invocation of Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, there was no necessity of pecuniary advantage in the sense of monetary gain, to the wrong doer. The words "pecuniary advantage" used in Section 13 (1)(d) are of wide amplitude. It may not every time mean and have reference to taking of money in physical form. Providing employment to someone favourably against merit, may be due to relation of some other tangible or intangible consideration, would also be a case of pecuniary advantage to both employee and also the wrong doer. Both would in one way or the other be making pecuniary advantage, tangible or intangible.
10. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the Trial Court is not to sift the evidence meticulously, but for the limited purpose as to see whether there are sufficient grounds for framing of charges. In Crl.M.C. 2691/2011 Page 6 of 7 the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 it was held as under:
"at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and Judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
11. Having regard to the entire factual matrix encompassing the serious offence of high magnitude involving large number of government servants and other political authorities of the Government of Haryana, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Special Judge of framing of charges against the petitioner. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JUNE 01, 2012/akb Crl.M.C. 2691/2011 Page 7 of 7