SHEEL KUMAR CHOUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of entire investigation relating to Crime No. 99/94 registered at Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Bhopal and further to quash the First Information Report contained in Annexure P- 1.

(2.) The facts as have been Undraped are that the petitioner is a Sub-Engineer in the Water Resources Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh since 13-9-74. At the time of joining of the post the pay scale of Sub-Engineer was Rs. 280-480. Subsequently, the said pay scale was revised. During the period 1974-79 the petitioner was posted at various places, namely, Saraipali Mahasamund, Raipur and from 1979-80 he was at Waidha, and thereafter he was continuing in Damoh district. During the said period he did not have to spend much and saved substantial amount out of his salary. A chart showing his income and expenditure during the aforesaid period has been brought on record as Annexure-P-2. The petitioner got married in the year 1975. His father-in-law has substantial agricultural income and his mother-in-law was in Government service. At the time of marriage petitioner's wife, Smt. Vijya Choubey, brought substantial moveable property including golden ornaments and other house hold articles. This property was received by the wife of the petitioner as 'Stridhan'. It is further pleaded in the petition that he has two sons and two daughters and as they all are minors very less amount is spent on them. It has also been asserted that the mother of the petitioner is a pension holder as his father who was in government service expired in 1962. The mother also inherited some agricultural land situated at village Dhana, District Sagar and she had a good income from agriculture. Out of agricultural income petitioner's mother had purchased landed property and it is still in her possession. His mother has purchased the property out of her own income. The schedule of property purchased by the mother of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure-P-4. It is put forth that respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, while investigating Crime No. 99/94 registered at Special Police Lokayukt, Bhopal included a house situate at Civil Line, Sagar in the name of the petitioner's mother-in-law. Smt. Savitri Bai, as 'Benami' purchased from the petitioner's income, though as an actual fact the said property is purchased from the income of his mother-in-law. The petitioner has filed documents to show the agricultural income of his mother-in-law and other documents to indicate that the house belongs to her. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner's younger brother. Rup Narayan Choubey is working as a Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department. He lost his wife in May, 1994 and his eldest daughter died in a road accident. The ornaments belonging to the wife of his younger brother are shown by the respondent No. 3 to be the property held and possessed by the petitioner for the purpose of indicating disproportionate assets of the petitioner. Similarly, F.D.R s. of worth Rs. 18,500/- belonging to his nieces have been accounted towards the property of the petitioner. It has been alleged that respondent No. 3 and his subordinate officers while preparing the inventor has illegally seized various documents belonging to the brother of the petitioner. It has been set forth in the petition that his sister, Smt. Nidhi Dubey, is married to Shri Arun Dubey who is a Police Inspector. It has been explained that certain fixed assets have been seized from the house of the petitioner at Damoh and Civil Line, Sagar. it has been set forth that on 3-5-94 an accident had occurred wherein Smt. Shakuntala Choubey wife of Shri Rup Narayan Choubey, daughter of Shri Rup Narayan Choubey and Tripti Dubey daughter of Shri Arun Kumar Dubey had died at the spot near Damoh. Because of this calamity certain documents were left at the petitioner's house and they have been seized at the time of conduct of raid. The respondent No. 3 seized gold weighing 825.5 gms from the lockers in the name of the mother of the petitioner from Dena Bank, Sagar. The respondent No. 3 has shown quantity of 141 gms. of, gold amounting to Rs.63,410/- to be the property belonging to the petitioner, though as an actual fact the entire gold belonged to the mother of the petitioner who has independent source of income from her agricultural properly. It has also been pleaded that cash worth Rs. 92,243/- was seized from the house of the mother-in-law but the same has been treated as property belonging to the petitioner, ignoring the fact that she had her own independent source of income and petitioner had nothing to do with her money. According to the writ petitioner the wife of the petitioner, Smt. Vijaya Choubey, had brought substantial ornaments and also cash at the time of marriage and she had purchased agricultural land out of her own income which has been shown by respondent No. 3 to be the income of the petitioner for making out a case under Ss. 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has also been highlighted in the petition that in addition to what the petitioner had earned towards his salary, he had income from Joint family property. It has been alleged that respondent No. 3 while preparing inventory relating to the property held and possessed by the petitioner has erroneously included the property held by Joint Hindu family and has also computed the property of his mother-in-law, sister and brother which is ex facie illegal. It is also put forth that the petitioner had purchased a plot in the year 1985 for which he had obtained departmental permission and sanction. He had also purchased one MIG house at Damoh worth Rs.1.93 lacs in the year 1993 for which he had obtained departmental permission. It is alleged that the respondent No. 3 and his subordinate officers have exaggerated the figures by including some house situate at Housing Board Colony, Damoh and house situate at Indira Nagar, Civil Line, Sagar and another house shown as a Farm House. It has also been put forth that the respondent No. 3 has not taken into consideration the properties held by the family members of the petitioner in their own capacity and has included the same in the property of the petitioner thereby bringing his case under S. 13 of the Act. It has been asserted by the petitioner that income out of bank deposits of his wife and four children has not been properly accounted and has not been deducted while calculating his income. The gifts received by the petitioner's wife at the time of marriage have also not been excluded. It is also set forth that the income saved during the period commencing 13-9-74 to 30-12-80 has not been taken into account. A grievance has been made that the properties of his mother and mother-in-law have been included without any Justifiable reason. It has also been contended that agricultural income out of lands held by mother and wife of the petitioner has not been accepted by respondent No. 3 while preparing the details of the property and same has been deliberately ignored as a result of which the case has been instantiated. It is urged in the petition that there are serious errors in mathematical calculation but the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to participate in the search and seizure and, therefore, he has been deprived of the opportunity to explain the factual scenario to the investigating agency. It has also been highlighted that had the objective investigation been done and the properties of the relations who have their own independent sources of income been excluded, the offence could not have been registered against the petitioner. It has also been stated that investigation has been done by Superintendent of Police who has no Jurisdiction to do so and that alone vitiates the Investigation and the registration of the case. With these averments relief has been prayed for as has been indicated above.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 contending, inter alia, that the charge-sheet has been filed before the Special Court on the basis of prima facie material collected during the investigation. The said respondents have filed a copy of final report and details, if expenditure/investment made in the names of wife, sons and daughters of the petitioner. It is also put forth that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is also highlighted that the petitioner has impleaded respondents Nos. 4 to 14 to get support in the case but that is in the realm of defence and it cannot be considered for quashing of the proceedings in exercise of power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.