ADARSH KUMAR BATRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution') relates to quashment of the impugned First Information Report No. 29 registered at Police Station, Nangal, district Ropar on 21.3. 1989 against the-petitioner. According to the allegations in the petition, the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer P.W.D. Public Health. He was posted as Junior Engineer on 9-2-1971 and remained posted at Nangal up to the year 1978 when he was transferred to Himachal Pradesh and remained there upto 1981 when he was again transferred to Nangal. The allegations against the petitioner, are, that the enquiry by the Vigilance department is pending against him regarding purchase 'of plot No. 97 at Nangal for Rs. 3300/- and the construction made thereon in the year 1980 by spending Rs. 1, 48,858/-, purchase of motor cycle in the year 1978 for Rs. 8,000/- installation of telephone at his house in the year 1980 and purchase of Maruti Van for Rs. 81,000/-. According to the allegations in the FIR, the plot was purchased by his wife Smt. Indira Kumari for Rs. 3300/- and building was constructed over it after spending Rs. 1,48,858/-. It is also stated therein that during the period 1978 to 1987 the known sources of income of the petitioner were Rs. 2,94,0,)0/. whereas he had spent Rs. 4,20,855/-, thereby an amount of Rs. 1,28,543/- was made by him by corrupt and illegal means and he has committed an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.

(2.) The State in its reply admitted the registration of the case against the petitioner vide impugned First Information Report and pleaded that the amount of Rs. 1,29,543/- was made by the petitioner by corrupt and illegal means and he is, thus, liable to be proceeded under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(3.) Counsel for the parties were heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on authority of the apex Court in State of Punjab V. Kailash Nath, 1989 AIR(SC) 558 submitted that the main allegations concerning the construction of the house in this petition relates to the year 1980 and even according to such allegations the construction was made by his wife on her plot which was purchased by her for an amount of Rs. 3300/-. It was further submitted that the wife of the petitioner was working as a Government teacher in the Himachal Pradesh, and, at present earning Rs. 2700/- per month and that income of the petitioner's wife prior, or, during the relevant period i.e. from 1978 onwards has not been taken into consideration. It is pertinent to note that there is no specific allegation in the impugned FIR that the building was constructed by the present petitioner over the plot purchased by his wife or that the petitioner had actually spent huge amount on the construction of the said house or that the income of the wife of the petitioner too was taken into consideration while holding that he had made or spent more money during the relevant period over the aforesaid items, in excess of his known sources of income or that of his wife. For the purpose of quashment of the impugned FIR, mainly the allegations contained therein have to be considered and not those taken up in the written statement for the first time. Thus from the aforesaid allegations set out in the impugned FIR it cannot be said that the petitioner himself had spent any amount on the construction of the said house, or, that he had made or spent money during the aforesaid period in excess of his known sources of income, in order to make out a prima facie case under Section 5(1)(e) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 1 find support on this point by the authority of the apex Court in State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 1, wherein it was held