NAOTTAM SINGH DHILLON Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 43768-M of 2004 (Narottam Singh Dhillon and another v. State of Punjab) and 58233-M of 2004 (Manjinder Singh Kang v. State of Punjab). The challenge in these petitions is to orders passed by Special Judge, Ropar and Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Amritsar, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners, seeking release of the operation of Bank accounts/lockers/FDRs have been dismissed. These petitions have been heard together as common question of law arises in these petitions. (The facts are being taken from Crl.Misc. No. 43768-M of 2004).

(2.) NAROTTAM Singh Dhillon and his wife have filed Crl.Misc. No. 43768-M of 2004 pleading that they have been involved and harassed in this case only because of being closely related to Shri Parkash Singh Badal, the former Chief Minister of Punjab. Terming this case to be a classic case of political vendetta, the petitioners have made a grouse of their arrest and involvement and the consequent seizure of their Bank accounts, lockers and FDRs by the Vigilance Bureau. FIR No. 22 dated 29.8.2002 was registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-I, Punjab, Mohali under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act coupled with Section 120-B IPC against one Hardeep Singh, who worked as officer on special duty (OSD) to Shri Parkash Singh Badal. It is alleged that said Hardeep Singh has collected wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income by employing illegal and corrupt methods, while working as O.S.D. to Parkash Singh Badal, Ex-Chief Minister. Petitioner No. 1, who was statedly on holidays with his wife at Shimla, was allegedly picked up by Vigilance Bureau officials in an illegal and arbitrary manner. No documents were allegedly shown to the petitioner when he was forcibly taken to an undisclosed destination. His wife, petitioner No. 2, accordingly gave telegrams to the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court and DGP, Punjab and DGP Himachal Pradesh. Another telegram was given to Chief Justice and the Vacation Judge of this court, highlighting the atrocities being committed on petitioner No. 1, her husband. It is further disclosed that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in this court on 11.6.2003, when Warrant Officer was appointed to search for petitioner No. 1. It is thereafter that he was shown to have been arrested in the present FIR, referred to above. It is then disclosed by the petitioners that not only petitioner No. 1 was arrested in this manner, but different Bank accounts, lockers and FDRs, belonging to the petitioners were freezed by the Vigilance Authorities. It is alleged that the State and its authority have abused their power in acting against the petitioners, though they are not even remotely connected with the aforesaid case and are being subjected to harassment and humiliation. Aggrieved against the action of the Vigilance Bureau in freezing the Bank accounts, lockers and FDRs, the petitioners moved separate applications for release of the same standing in their respective names. Both these applications have been dismissed by the Special Judge, Ropar on 16.2.2004, which have now been impugned in the present petition. The case set up by the petitioners is that the impugned orders are bereft of any application of mind where the Judge has acted merely as a rubber stamp and a mouthpiece of the prosecution. Relying upon the provisions of Section 102 Cr.P.C., it is urged that there has been a complete violation of the said provisions, rendering the order of seizure etc. to be illegal, null and void. It is accordingly prayed that the same be set-aside.

(3.) REPLIES have been filed on behalf of the State in both the cases. The allegations of political vendetta have been denied. It is rather disclosed that petitioner Narottam Singh was served a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and he had accordingly attended the office of Vigilance Bureau. Justifying the action in freezing/seizing the lockers, FDRs etc., it is stated that during investigation it was revealed that petitioner Narottam Singh was a conduit in converting the ill-gotten black money of Hardeep Singh, who was OSD to Ex- Chief Minister, Punjab. It is also disclosed that during investigation it was revealed that he was having no money before the date Shri Parkash Singh Badal assumed the office of the Chief Minister, Punjab and thereafter he converted the black money of Badals to the tune of crores of rupees by depositing it in his accounts at the first instance and subsequently paying it to Badals for Orbit Resorts and others ventures. Suspecting that the money and articles lying in the lockers were apparently the part of same money, which he had either got directly through Badals or through Kardeep Singh, OSD to Ex-Chief Minister, the order seizing the same was made. It is also claimed that this was well within the powers of the Vigilance Bureau. Besides, it is further averred in the reply that petitioner Narottam Singh is an absconder of U.S. Government and warrants of his arrest have been issued by the law courts at California. He has allegedly advanced loans through cheques to Shri Parkash Singh Badal, Smt. Surinder Kaur Badal and Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal at lower rates of interest than those he had taken from the banks. The reply filed by the State would also disclose that Hardeep Singh is still absconding a challan, after completing the formalities, has been presented in the court of Special Judge, Ropar. The plea of innocence, as raised by the petitioners, accordingly, is strongly controverted by the State besides disclosing that the investigation has revealed a clear and complete nexus between petitioner Narottam Singh and the main accused Hardeep Singh and Shri Parkash Singh Badal etc. to the effect that he was helping them out by converting the black money into white. Under these circumstances, action of Special Judge, Ropar in dismissing the applications of the petitioners has been justified.