LAWS(P&H)-2008-12-21

AJIT SINGH DAHIYA Vs. DIRECTOR C.B.I.

Decided On December 02, 2008
Ajit Singh Dahiya Appellant
V/S
Director C.B.I. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case against respondents No. 2 to 20, who happen to be serving Officers in the Indian Army, for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner's case as set out in the writ petition is that he served in the Ordnance Corps of the Army till the year 1999 as a Clerk. He appears to have sought voluntarily release from the Army and got himself registered as a Contractor for supply of different items including consumable to different establishments in the Army. In the course of his career as a registered contractor, he claims to have secured contracts for supply of different items required by the Army by offering bribe in the form of commission to Army Officers handling allotments of the said contracts. Some of these officers have been arrayed as respondents No. 2 to 20 to this writ petition. It is noteworthy that while respondents No. 2 to 9 are Brigadiers serving in different formations in the Indian Army, respondents No. 10 to 19 are serving as Colonels, Respondent No. 20 is a Major.

(2.) WHEN this petition came up before us on 25.11.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit enumerating the contracts which the petitioner had secured for supply of various goods to the Army, the amount which he had allegedly paid towards bribe in connection with the said contracts and the names of the officers to whom such bribes were paid. The petitioner has pursuant to the said direction today filed an affidavit. In Para No. 2 of the said affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the real motive behind doing business with the Indian Army was to bring the corrupt officers working in the Army to book by exposing them to the rigors of law. The affidavit goes on to give details of the commission/bribe which the petitioner claims to have paid to different officers on different dates. The details are noteworthy to the extent that the commission/bribe has been paid to Col. Krishan Kumar eight times between July, 2004 to April, 2006. The petitioner alleges that out of the amount paid to Col. Krishan Kumar, 5% of the total was to go to Brig. Arjun Roy while the rest was to be taken by the remaining officers associated with the process of allotment of contracts and supply of the goods. Similarly, details about the payments allegedly made to other officers like Col. Sanjay Sethi, Col. Rakesh Walia, Col. M.K. Chaudhary, Col. K.K. Nathani, Col. S.S. Johal, Lt. Col. Sukhvir, Lt. Col. M.K. Sharma, Lt. Col. K.Bhardwaj, Capt. Pargeet Dahasand and Col. B.S. Mavi are also given in the additional affidavit. The affidavit further states that the payments were made to the officers named in the petition as respondents on the same footing. The affidavit goes on to state that the deponent was forced to make payments as some times the payments due to the deponent were stopped and some other times the tenders were not accepted unless and until the payments were made to the officers mentioned above. The petitioner makes a self righteous assertion to allege that if his intention was to do business with the army and earn money, he could have continued doing so. He was, however, exposing the racket to bring the corruption prevailing in the Army to light. The affidavit also states that for a period of eight years i.e. from 1999 to 2006, the petitioner did a business of about Rs. 20,000,00/-, out of which a commission of Rs. 8,07,000/- went to the pockets of the officers mentioned in the affidavit. What is significant is that according to the petitioner, the corruption was prevailing not only in the regions where the petitioner was doing business but was spread over the rest of the country also. According to the estimate of the petitioner, the government is on account of prevailing corrupt system losing about Rs. 1700 Crores approximately every year. The affidavit also refers to a letter marked Annexure P-5 addressed to the Chief Justice of India who is said to have directed the CBI to register an FIR against four Officers mentioned in the same on the administrative side. The C.B.I. has accordingly registered an FIR under Sections 120-B, 420,467,468,471 IPC read with Sections 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A copy of the FIR has also been enclosed as Annexure P-6.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner was not associated with the preliminary enquiry and investigation, if any, conducted by the CBI. He submits that the CBI ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity to establish the veracity of his allegations and to provide necessary evidence that would make out a case for registration of an FIR. He further urged that the very fact that the petitioner had not filed any complaint in the year 2003, 2004 or 2005, against those, who were demanding and receiving bribe/commission from him, was not enough to suspect the petitioner's intention. He urged that petitioner could at any stage disclose the racket and demand action against those involved in the same. He submits that if the petitioner intended only to make money, he could have continued to do so by getting benefit of the allotments made in his favour by corrupt officers after receiving bribe/commission. His intention behind filing of this petition is, therefore, totally honest and above board.