TRILOK CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the first information report No. 51/89 registered by the Anti Corruption Department on 29. 4. 89 which is pending for investigation. A prayer has also been made to direct the S. H. O. /investigating Officer of Anti Corruption Department not to take any further step in respect of the aforesaid first information report and that the respondents be restrained from granting sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner.

(2.) THE case set out by the petitioner is that he joined service of THE Government of Rajasthan as Junior Engineer on 20. 9. 65. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer by order dated, 12. 4. 78. In the year 1985 he was posted as Assistant Engineer at Kishangarh. During his tenure as Assistant Engineer at Kishangarh, the work of laying down the pipe lines in some part of the city of Kishangarh was undertaken in the months of February and March 1985. THE work was completed through daily wages workers vide Muster Rolls No. 5707 and 5708. Since the total amount for the aforesaid work exceeded the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Assistant Engineer, sanction was obtained from the higher authorities. According to the petitioner, the entire work was being done under the direct supervision of Junior Engineer. THE petitioner was only to check the progress report in accordance with the work already done at the site. Some persons made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Department in respect of the aforesaid work and the Anti Corruption Department, as usual, drew, a complaint against the petitioner as a whole for offences under sections 420, 467, 471 IPC read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A first information report No. 51/89 was registered by the Anti Corruption Department. THE investigation has been completed and the matter is pending before the Government for sanction of the prosecution of the petitioner and others. It is also the case of the petitioner that the complaint had been made by one Shri Prem Chand son of Ram Lal. Said Shri Prem Chand had no concern with the work and he had no knowledge about the alleged mis-deeds committed in doing of the work of laying down the pipe-lines. He subsequently submitted an affidavit about the fact that he was misled about filing of complaint. His affidavit dated, 26. 6. 89 has been filed alongwith the writ petition in order to show that the complaint filed by Shri Prem Chand was misconceived. THE petitioner made representations to the Chief Minister on 16. 1. 91 and other higher authorities, but, he has not received any reply from the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and other authorities of the government. THE petitioner's case is that the first information report registered by the Anti Corruption Department does not disclose that the petitioner has committed any offence and, notwithstanding that, the respondents are proceeding with hot-haste by falsely implicating the petitioner in the premises aforesaid. THE petitioner has made two prayers to which reference has been made herein above.

(3.) IN Saldanha's case (supra), the investigation was in progress when the High Court issued a mandamus which virtually resulted in closure of the case. Reversing the High Court's order their Lordships held that the High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the investigation process.