MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJABS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE epitome of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for the grant of concession of pre -arrest bail and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that, petitioner Manjit Singh was working as Naib Tehsildar at Dera Baba Nanak. The provincial government was the owner of the land in question, measuring 70 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated at village Gurchak, Distt. Gurdaspur. Although the petitioner was not at all authorized by the competent authority, but still, he has prepared, executed the forged conveyance deed dated 26.12.2011 (Annexure P2) and signed it on behalf of Governor of Punjab in favour of one Jaswinder Singh son of Jaimal Singh, after receiving an illegal gratification (bribe) of Rs. 4 lacs. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that Surinder Pal Singh Pannu, co -accused and next Naib Tehsildar, has registered the mutation, without verification, in pursuance of fake conveyance deed executed by the petitioner in favour of Jaswinder Singh on 12.01.2012. On 26.03.2012, as soon as Gurmukh Singh, Office Kanungo, came to know regarding the big fraud/scam, then, he has informed (in writing) to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur in this regard. Not only that, Surinder Pal Singh Pannu, Naib Tehsildar (co -accused of the petitioner) again registered the fake sale deed dated 26.04.2012, executed by Jaswinder Singh in favour of Surjit Singh son of Bhag Singh and Amarjit Singh son of Partap Singh. The matter was inquired into. During the course of inquiry, it revealed that the petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 4 lacs as illegal gratification (bribe) and executed the indicated forged conveyance deed on behalf of Governor of Punjab in respect of government land by misusing his power as public servant. In this manner, the accused have caused the loss of many lacs to the government exchequer. During the inquiry, the allegations levelled against the petitioner were found to be correct by the Vigilance Department.

(2.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner and his other co -accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared the fake conveyance deed on behalf of Governor of Punjab, used the forged documents as genuine and illegally transferred the land of the provincial government, after accepting a bribe of Rs. 4 lacs. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his other co -accused, vide FIR No. 08 dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure P -1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar, in the manner depicted here -in -above.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.