SURESH AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURESH Agnihotri has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr. P. C.) for handing over the investigation of case FIR No.43 dated 26.03.2007, under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short - the Act), registered at Police Station City, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-9) to some independent agency like CBI.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as Child Development and Project Officer at Gurdaspur. About a month before his retirement on superannuation, the aforesaid FIR was registered inter alia on the allegation that the petitioner had taken Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant Surjit Kaur for appointing her as Helper in Anganwari Center and the petitioner was demanding Rs.10,000/- more from the complainant, which she could not pay.

(3.) CONTENTION on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not act as desired by respondent no. 4 (Gurbachan Singh Babehali - Member of Legislative Assembly) and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that appointment of the complainant was made by the petitioner on 29.08.2005 i.e. more than 1 years before the lodging of the FIR. It was also contended that the petitioner had served notice dated 22.02.2007 (Annexure P-8) seeking explanation of the complainant Surjit Kaur as to why she applied for maternity leave for third child, which is not permissible and why she applied for leave after expiry of the leave period, and it was a month thereafter that the impugned FIR was lodged. It was also pointed out that both witnesses of alleged payment of Rs,10,000/- by the complainant to the petitioner as illegal gratification are interested witnesses inasmuch as one witness Ravinder Singh is cousin of respondent no.4, whereas other witness Joga Singh belongs to Village Babehali, which is the village of respondent no.4.