AMRINDER SINGH KANG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No. 89 registered against him at Police Station Mohali, district Ropar, on 24-11-l988 for the offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, inter alia on the ground of delay in completion of investigation as well as on the ground that he was earlier exonerated in a regular enquiry by the Vigilance Department, but the investigator had not taken into account certain entries of loans procured by the petitioner from his father, father-in-law and brother-in-law for construction of the house and Shop-cum-Office.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Secretary on ad hoc basis in the Punjab School Education Board in May, 1977. The service of the petitioner was regularised later on and he was confirmed as Deputy Secretary (Production) in February, 1978. He was made incharge of the Publication Branch. Earlier, majority of the printing work was being got done from private press at Jalandhar, but on account of the petitioner having rationalised the printing programme, the private pressmen felt offended, Mr. Jagdish Gupta Printer has levelled baseless allegations against him. On these allegations, preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Crime Investigation Department, but the petitioner was never questioned. Subsequently, a regular enquiry No. 4/83 (District Ropar) was initiated against the petitioner on 28-2-1983 for amassing wealth disproportionate to his income during the period from May, 197 7/03/1983. The petitioner learnt of this enquiry on 14/03/1983 when the enquiry officer inspected the records in the office and recorded statements of various officials, concerned with the printing work. Thereafter the enquiry pertaining to procedural lapses and financial irregularities was dropped at the initial stage. However, the enquiry qua the disproportionate assets of the petitioner and construction of residential house No. 2196, Sector 38C, Chandigarh, and a party constructed shop-cum-office in the name of his wife in Sector 37C, Chandigarh, continued uptil March, 1985, by different inquiry officers and ultimately to the knowledge of the petitioner it was concluded that the income of the petitioner from all known sources was Rs. 5,88,386.13 and the total expenditure incurred by him on the construction of the residential house and the shop-cum-office was Rs. 5,77,376.45. As such the enquiry officer found that income of the petitioner exceed by Rs. 7,000 / - to his assets and recommended dropping of the enquiry. This report of the enquiry officer was also approved by the Audit and Legal Wings of the Vigilance Department. The case was then sent to the Government for dropping the same some time in the year 1985, but the press lobby again pressurised the Government not to drop the case and it was sent back to the Vigilance Department for some queries. Ultimately, Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Deputy Superintendent of Police, contacted the petitioner in June, 1986 and thereafter the petitioner heard nothing for about two years when another Inspector Shri Lok Ram contacted the petitioner and informed him that Rs. 30,000.00 spent by the petitioner's father during the construction of the house as well as another sum of Rs. 10,000/ - spent by his father on the construction of the shop-cum-office could not be taken into account. Another sum of Rs. 10,000.00 given by the brother-in-law of the petitioner was not allowed by them despite the fact that this amount was credited to the petitioner's account. The supply of bricks worth Rs. 11,850.00 by the father-in-law of the petitioner was also not admitted. The petitioner also alleged that an amount of Rs.1,29,375.00- was added to the petitioner's expenditure on the shop-cum-office by ignoring the factum that at the time of auction of the shop-cum-office, petitioner's wife had only paid Rs.43,125.00 towards its first instalment and on her failure to pay the remaining amount, the site was resumed. Thereafter the petitioner in November, 1988, learnt that a case has been registered against him on 25-11-1988 for amassing disproportionate assets vide FIR, the English translation of which, reproduced in para 7 of the petition, reads as under:- "Written report received from Sh. Gurdial Singh, Inspector, Vigilance Department, Punjab through Shri Kuldeep Singh, Constable No. 36/650, C.A. Vigilance Bureau Punjab, Chandigarh. The subject-matter of which is as under :- It has come to know through Chief Officer, P. S. Mohali, district Ropar, and through reliable sources that Shri Amrinder Singh Kang, Deputy Secretary (Production), Punjab School Education Board, was employed in the Board from 18-5-1977 to 31-3-1983. This has also become known that he had collected a good fortune and property through corruption which is more than his known sources of income. During this period his income from all known sources is Rs. 5,22, 536. 13 whereas he had spent Rs. 7,06,751.43 himself or through his wife for the purchase of property, construction thereon, and besides purchased a car and scooter and also paid interest on the loans received by him and his wife. His wife has also purchased a share in the printing press at Parwanoo. During this period Shri Amrinder Singh Kang, Deputy Secretary (Production) Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, has spent on the above noted property and for his households Rs. 7,06,751.45. As such he has over spent a sum of Rs. 1,84,215.32 from his income and as such committed crime under S. 5(2) 47 read with S. 5(1)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As a case be registered against Shri Amrinder Singh Kang, Deputy Secretary under the above noted Section and copy of the F.I.R. be sent to me and I shall myself enquire into the same. This letter sent through C. Kuldip Singh, No. 36/ 650, C.A. Vigilance Department, Punjab. Sd/- Gurdial Singh, Inspector, Vigilance Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, 24-11-l988 at 11.00 a. m. "

(3.) The petitioner contends that registration of the case alter expiry of 5 1/2 years of the check-period and non-conclusion of the investigation till the date of filling this petition had resulted in debarring the petitioner of his right to speedy trial available to a citizen under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It was also averred on merits of the case that the above-referred loans taken by the petitioner from his father, brother-in-law and father-in-law have wrongly been brushed aside by the investigator.