PALA RAM BISHNOI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.3 dated 7.2.2014, under Sections 7, 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Sector 17, Panchkula.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner, who is a senior Officer working under the State of Haryana has been implicated on the basis of a motivated complaint dated 8.3.2011 made by Lt.Col.(Retired) Shadi Ram Saini who was a Proprietor of Haryana Security Services, Ambala City. It is contended that the petitioner had never demanded bribe so as to facilitate the issuance of a labour licence to the complainant. Learned senior counsel submits that factually, it was the Principal of Kalpana Chawla Polytechnic for Women, Ambala City who was interested in the issuance of a licence in favour of the complainant so as to provide workers in the College on outsourcing basis, but since the application submitted by the complainant did not fulfil the requisite requirements as per provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, accordingly, the petitioner had raised objections and pointed out shortcomings in the application. It is further argued that the Principal of the College had repeatedly addressed communications to the petitioner for grant of labour licence in favour of the complainant and in this regard, has adverted to the documents placed on record at Annexures P2 to P5. It is contended that only on account of the licence having not been issued, the complainant had submitted a false complaint. Yet another submission raised by learned senior counsel is that the allegations of demanding and accepting bribe were made against the present petitioner in the capacity of holding a post of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Panchkula as also against one Paramjit Singh, Labour Officer, Ambala, but during the course of enquiry, Paramjit Singh has been found to be innocent. This, as per counsel, was in itself sufficient to hold the complaint lodged by Lt.Col. (retired) Shadi Ram Saini to be frivolous and false.

(3.) ON the previous date of hearing i.e. on 1.5.2015, this Court had directed the learned State counsel to produce the original complaint dated 8.3.2011 that had been filed by the complainant. Such directions were issued obviously to examine the nature of allegations made against the present petitioner by the complainant.