AMARJIT GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Our whole country is in the grip of hydra-headed monster of corruption. The "corruption" has become a household word in the Indian society. It has not only eaten deep into the ethical fabrics of Indian society but has also spoiled the character of its people. The general perception of public about public servants is that opportunity to service in the civil services is an avenue for personal enrichment and not for the service of the people. To tame the tidal waves of corruption, sweeping the entire gamut of the country, an integrated approach is required to be undertaken. The corruption fuels maladministration and public fraudulence and imperils the capacity of the country. The petitioner is facing such charges and has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.02 dated 02.05.2012, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, FS-I, Punjab at Mohali, under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, '1988 Act').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are to the effect that a complaint dated 21.03.2012 was received by the State Vigilance Bureau against the petitioner and others from the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (in short 'Housefed'). As per the complaint, tenders for construction of 632 flats in two parts in Sector 79, Mohali were invited by Housefed in the year 2010. One tender was for Rs. 34,18,17,665/- and other was for Rs. 38,58,72,164/- which were allotted to M/s Manohar Lal Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd., M/s E.C.Construction Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Venktesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. The Technical Advisor to the Chief Minister, Punjab perused the estimates and agreements with regard to said tenders and pointed out that mistake has been found to be committed in tendering process of said job by the senior engineering staff of the organization. On the basis of said report, preliminary investigation of said tenders was conducted and it transpired that rates which were spoken by Rajinder Singh at the time of opening the tenders, were later on changed by the petitioner and others. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner happened to be the Superintending Engineer at that point of time has given benefit of Rs. 8,61,22,007/- to the MLGC in connivance with the contractors. The agency has gained extra benefit of Rs. 5,09,98,581/- upto October, 2011 by revising the rates. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No.02 dated 02.05.2012 was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, FS-I, Punjab at Mohali.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.