ASHWANI KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in case arising out of FIR No. 02 dated 23.1.2013, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Jalandhar, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that raid was conducted by the DSP at the premises of the Aggarwal Rice Mills; sole proprietor of that firm is Rahul Gupta; petitioners are neither the partners nor have relationship with the concerned mill. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contends that physical verification of the mill was conducted on 31.1.2013 and no shortfall was reported against the said firm; petitioners are running independent business and have nothing to do with Rahul Gupta. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that according to the verification report, 5750 bags of paddy were converted into rice and handed over to the FCI. He further contends that the entire case is dependent upon the verification done on 31.1.2013 and on the basis thereof, he states that the petitioners are not at fault. Another verification was carried out on 15.2.2013 by the District Manager, PUNSUP, Jalandhar. According to this physical verification, there was no shortfall. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that according to the allegation 24 bundles (Bardana) Mark PUNSUP were found at different places which have no link with the PUNSUP.

(3.) In nutshell, the main contention of the petitioners is that no deficiency was found upon physical verification carried out on 31.1.2013 and 15.2.2013 by the District Manager, PUNSUP, Jalandhar. A perusal of the FIR shows that the petitioners are the sons of Tarsem Lal and Rahul Gupta, sole proprietor of the mill is also son of Tarsem Lal, therefore, the petitioners are the brothers of said Rahul Gupta. It has not come on record that who were the actual partners of the mill. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to make a mention that there are specific allegations against some of the officials, namely, Rishav Mahant, Inspector-2 and Yadwinder Singh, Field Officer of PUNSUP wherein it is alleged that Ashwani Kumar and Anil Kumar sons of late Tarsem Lal Gupta, who were also running the commission agents shops, in connivance with the officials, have caused loss of Rs.1,65,50,000/- to the PUNSUP. Where the connivance of the officials is involved, in such case, custodial interrogation is necessary. It is a common knowledge that the rice millers, in connivance with the officials, are indulging in such like practices. This Court in the case of Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No.M-13372 of 2012, vide order dated 28.5.2012, has taken suo-motu notice of such large scale bungling and based upon directions issued therein, inquiry has been conducted wherein facts have emerged regarding large scale connivance of the departmental officials.