Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arjun Dev vs State Of Haryana on 20 April, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Crl.Revision No.1154 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Revision No.1154 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 20.04.2012
Arjun Dev ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
Vide impugned order dated 24.1.2012, the petitioner along with other accused has been charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and under Section 13(1) (D) of P.C. Act by Sh. S.K.Khanduja, Special Judge, Nuh in a case arising out of FIR No.36/18.11.2005 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC 13 (1) (D) of P.C. Act, Police Station SVB Gurgaon.
The aforesaid order is under challenge in this criminal revision petition at the instance of petitioner-Arjun Dev.
The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner remained President of Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka from the year 2004 to 2005. The allegations against him are that the Municipal Committee sold its land to CRPF for a sum of Rs.2,80,00,000/- and out of the said amount, Rs.1,03,00,000/- was spent for making pucca roads through contractors, namely, Sanjay Jain, Manish, Satinder Jain, Tek Chand, Fakrudin, Dharmender Kaushik, Suresh Chand, Sahir Khan and Ishak but less quantity of cement was used for the said Crl.Revision No.1154 of 2012 2 construction work. It was further alleged that the samples were lifted through XEN and as per the report of FSL, Madhuban, it was found that cement amounting to Rs.43,767/- was used less and excess payment was released to the contractors.
According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the FIR in question has been got registered against the petitioner after completion of his tenure due to political rivalry and in fact all the development works were carried out under the supervision of the technical staff of the Municipal Committee and there is no allegation against the petitioner that the aforesaid development work has not been done in accordance with law. It has been further argued that there is no such allegation that the work was allotted without following the due procedure and in fact, the above said work was allotted after following the due procedure and if the staff of the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka did not execute the work properly, that was not the functioning of the petitioner and it was the duty of the other officers to check whether the work has been executed as per the work order or not. Moreover, in spite of serious allegations against one Sh.Ramesh Kumar, JE, sanction to prosecute him was declined by the Department and thus, instead of taking action against the real culprit, the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the FIR in question and the impugned orders and other material produced before this Court in this revision petition.
A perusal of the FIR in question would show that there are specific allegations of the use of less material by the contractor in execution of the work allotted by the Municipal Committee and further it has Crl.Revision No.1154 of 2012 3 been specifically alleged that excess payment has been made to the contractors. Admittedly, the cheques in question on the basis of which excess payment was made to the contractors were issued by the petitioner. It has also come on record that during the course of investigation, 13 samples were lifted and as per report of the FSL, less quantity of cement was used. It was also found during investigation that there is bungling in the entries and measurement books and thus, excess payment of Rs.6,59,864/- was paid to the contractors in connivance with the petitioner and other employees. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to have been committed, is without any merit.
It may also be relevant to notice that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court need not enter into the roving enquiry as to whether the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency is or is not, sufficient to sustain charge. The facts are to be seen at their face value and since in this case, the police has collected ample evidence to prove that less quantity of cement was used in the construction work and has also found that excess payment has been got made from the Municipal funds by the petitioner in connivance with other accused, no error can be found in the impugned order. The allegations on the face of it do not make the petitioner innocent at this stage.
Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Dismissed.
April 20, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE