LEHRI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") prays for issuance of pre-arrest bail order in case FIR No. 19, dated 3.6.2002 registered under Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), at Police Station, SVB, Karnal.

(2.) BRIEFLY , allegations in the FIR are that the accused-petitioner has remained member of Legislative Assembly. It is alleged that from the year 1982 till 1996 he has an income of Rs. 7,87,400.19 whereas his expenditure during the period from 1977 to 1996 is Rs. 13,80,974.00. It is further alleged that the accused-petitioner has acquired property worth Rs. 5,93,566/- more than his known sources of income by illegal means and is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 13(i)(e) of the Act. The FIR was registered after the inquiry had been conducted by the Vigilance Bureau, Haryana through its Deputy Superintendent of Police. Details of properties have also been given. It is also and alleged that the accused-petitioner has acquired the assets by misusing his position as an M.L.A. of the Congress Party. He filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula which has been dismissed by holding that the accused-petitioner had remained unable to tender any explanation with regard to the property acquired during the period commencing from 1982 to 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) MR . R.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has argued that the Inquiry Officer has inflated the figure in respect in respect of M/s Mehra Motors-Petrol Pump, Sector 16, Panchkula whereas the accused-petitioner has, infact, invested a sum of Rs. 4,19,869.81 as is clear from the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Annexure P.1. The figure shown by the Investigating Officer as expenditure on the construction of the building of Petrol Pump in the year 1993 at Panchkula is Rs. 8,71,074.00. Learned counsel has further argued that accused-petitioner has remained M.L.A. for two terms i.e. from 1982 to 1987 and May 1991 to May 1996, whereas the expenditure has been included which is of the years 1987 to 1990 as is clear from item Nos. 2 and 4. Against item No. 2, it has been shown that there was a construction of building in village Radaur during years 1987-90 and an amount of Rs. 3 lacs has been shown as expenditure. In respect of Item No. 4, expenditure shown in the purchase of house No. 1121, Sector 10 Panchkula is Rs. 1,57,000/-. According to the learned counsel, if the amount of over Rs. 4 lacs certified by the Chartered Accountant is taken off from the expenditure reflected for construction of Petrol Pump at Panchkula that itself would narrow down the margin of excess income of about Rs. 5,93,000/- to only over Rs. one lac. If the other two amounts of Rs. 3 lacs and Rs. 1,50,000/-, as stated above, are deducted when the petitioner was not an MLA then no excess amount could be found against accused-petitioner. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the accused-petitioner is an MLA belonging to the Congress Party which is opposed to the party in power i.e. INLD and the case has been registered to achieve an oblique motive of tarnishing his image and reputation of the accused-petitioner who is the President of the Congress Party of the District Congress Committee (Rural), Distt. Yamunanagar. Another argument raised by the learned counsel is that there is a huge delay in recording of FIR as the assets assessed are from 1977 to 1996 and the income assessed is of 1982 to 1996. An additional affidavit was also filed to further explain the aforementioned allegations which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.