Punjab-Haryana High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Col. B.S. Goraya And Others on 16 February, 2009
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 37-SB of 1996
Date of decision: 16th February, 2009
Central Bureau of Investigation
... Appellant
Versus
Col. B.S. Goraya and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Central Govt. Standing Counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Respondent Col. B.S. Goraya is facing trial in an FIR registered against him by Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
During the course of investigation, investigating agency came to the conclusion that between the period from 1st January, 1987 to 8th August, 1990, respondent No.1 Col. B.S. Goraya and others have acquired properties amounting to Rs.82,58,000/- and these properties were disproportionate to the tune of Rs.72,69,000/-. On the application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Judge, Chandigarh had attached House No. 208, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
An application was filed by the respondents praying that order be reviewed and the residential House No. 208, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, Criminal Appeal No.37-SB of 1996 2 which was attached, be released. Two grounds were taken in the application. Firstly that residential house cannot be attached. Secondly that other assets attached have more value than the amount of assets allegedly acquired by the respondents through disproportionate source of income.
Three objections were raised by the appellantbefore the trial Court. Firstly, that review is not permissible. Secondly, that the right of appeal vests in the respondents and thirdly application for furnishing adequate security under Section 8 of the Ordinance moved by the petitioner was earlier dismissed.
Trial Court negated these arguments by saying that other assets attached are more valuable than the residential house as per the valuation conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, therefore agricultural land of the petitioner has been attached. Secondly, it has been stated that under the Ordinance, attachment proceedings are conducted as a civil suit, therefore review is permissible and thirdly, residential house cannot be attached.
This impugned order was passed by Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, Chandigarh on 9th January, 1996. 13 years are going to elapse. This Court had called for the report of the trial Court. It has been stated that the respondent had gone to the Hon'ble Apex Court and his SLP has been dismissed. Therefore, there is no impediment now in the commencement of the trial.
Taking the whole gamut into consideration, I am of the view that trial Court can be directed to conclude the trial within one year after the receipt of the record from the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Counsel for the respondents has stated that the house in question has not been sold and they are ready and willing to furnish undertaking that till the conclusion of the trial the house will not be sold. Criminal Appeal No.37-SB of 1996 3
Respondents may file an undertaking before the trial Court on or before 28th March, 2009. Trial Court shall ensure that house in question is not sold during the pendency of the trial and till the period of limitation of the appeal after conclusion of trial. Necessary communication by the trial Court be sent to the Chandigarh Administration, where records of rights are kept.
With these observations, present petition is disposed off.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 16, 2009 rps