Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 6 (PNJ)

Mewa Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-01-10

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. F.I.R. No. 37 dated 30.4.1998 has been registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Patiala for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 218 and 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These petitions arise from the same F.I.R. and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The material allegations found in the F.I.R. are as follows :- In the year 1993-94 in the District of Patiala, the manufacturer of Super Phosphate Fertilizer-M/s Modern Agro Industries, Jalandhar, in connivance with different officials, who have misused their official position, forged the records, misappropriated the subsidy @ Rs. 340/- per ton on 8427 tonns amounting to Rs. 28, 65,180/- and have caused loss to Government. The officers and dealers have made profits for themselves. 3. Similarly, in the year 1994-95, in District Patiala, a total of 10,671 tonns of fertilizer was shown to have come out, of which 6213 tonns were endorsed by the officers. The total amount of subsidy is Rs. 21, 12,422/- @ Rs. 340/- per ton. In this way 15 officers named in the F.I.R. along with the owners/partners of the dealers and Commission Agent- Ramesh Kumar have misappropriated Rs. 49,77,600/- as subsidy for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The dealers mentioned in the F.I.R. are also involved in this conspiracy. 4. M/s. Modern Agro Industries, Jalandhar in connivance with the officers of the Agricultural Department, Jalandhar and Commission Agents, has shown the fake purchases and supply without supplying any fertilizer. The officers of the Agricultural Department and Punjab Agro Corporation Industry have made fake endorsements and fake record was prepared. The dealers mentioned in the F.I.R. in connivance with Swaran Singh Dhillon, Managing Director of Modem Ago Fertilizer Limited and the officers mentioned have misappropriated Rs. 49,77,600/- as subsidy for Super Phosphate Fertilizer. 5. Mewa Singh Sonar (petitioner in Cr. M. 21252-M/99) and Gurbux Singh (petitioner in Cr. M. 16309-M/99) were Joint Directors of Agriculture, Punjab and they have moved Special Judge, Patiala for bail in anticipation of arrest, but their applications have been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala. Therefore, these petitioners have approached this Court for the same relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 7. Therefore, these petitioners have approached this Court for the same relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 7. The case of the prosecution is that all the manufacturers of the fertilizers Super Phosphate, who sell the same to the dealers at price fixed by the Government, have to produce proof before the Government for getting the subsidy on the sale of the said fertilizers. The dealers, in turn, should have sold it to the farmers at the price fixed by the Government. On proof of these factors, the manufacturers can apply for the subsidy to the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation (for short referred to as PAIC) which is stated to act as the Nodal agency for distribution of fertilizer. The PAIC has to scrutinise the applications and forward the same to the Agricultural Department for verification. The Chief Agricultural Inspectors, the Chief Inspector of Fertilizer and Joint Director Agriculture (Inputs) have to verify about the production, the sale to the dealers and then sale to the farmers at the price fixed, and then recommended the release of the subsidy. 8. The further case of the prosecution is that M/s. Modern Agro Industries, a manufacturer, in connivance with the officials of the Agriculture Department and PAIC, created bogus records, as if Super Phosphate Fertilizer was sold at the rate fixed, claimed and received subsidy, and thereby caused wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to itself and to the co-accused who are officials of the Agriculture Department and the PAIC and the dealers etc. 9. Petitioner-Mewa Singh Sonar in his capacity as Joint Director of Agriculture (Inputs) is alleged to have verified the claims for subsidy in two cases where there was actually no sale of Super Phosphate Fertilizer and to have recommended the release of the subsidy, in connivance with the co-accused mentioned above and thereby caused wrongful gain to himself and his co-accused, and wrongful loss to the Government. 10. But the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner- Mewa Singh Sonar is not at all named in the F.I.R., nor has he been arrested, and that the subsidy is released only by the PAIC. 10. But the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner- Mewa Singh Sonar is not at all named in the F.I.R., nor has he been arrested, and that the subsidy is released only by the PAIC. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to annexure P-2, the letter addressed by the Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture to the Director of Agriculture, Punjab wherein it has been mentioned that it is the Director of Agriculture Punjab, who will be the controlling officer as well as the drawing or disbursing officer of this scheme. He also referred to annexure P-3, the recommendation for the release of subsidy amounting to Rs. 75, 27,277/- signed by the Chief Inspector of Fertilizers, who is posted at the factory itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this has only been countersigned by the petitioner-Mewa Singh Sonar, and that in annexure P-3 itself, it has been mentioned that PAIC had not submitted the details of sale district-wise/retail dealer-wise for verification of the Chief Agricultural Officers, and that the PAIC can be asked to submit these details so that these factors could be verified through the Chief Agricultural Officers. He also pointed out that annexure P-4 wherein a similar recommendation has been made for the release of Rs. 38, 88,920/- signed by the Chief Inspector of Fertilizers and countersigned by the petitioner- Mewa Singh Sonar with similar statement that the PAIC has not submitted the details as mentioned above and will be asked to give the details. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that almost all the accused named in the F.I.R. have been allowed bail, and that even the Director of Agriculture- S.S. Bains has also been released on bail by the Special Judge, Patiala as seen from the order- Annexure P-5. He also contended that there are no other allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner- Mewa Singh Sonar is entitled to be released on bail. 12. So far as the other petitioner- Gurbux Singh is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he was also working as a Joint Director of Agriculture and had retired, against whom similar allegations have been made. He is alleged to have passed five bills (1) for Rs. 22 lakhs and odd, (2) Rs. 16 lakhs and odd (3) Two crores and odd, (4) 66 lakhs and odd and (5) Rs. He is alleged to have passed five bills (1) for Rs. 22 lakhs and odd, (2) Rs. 16 lakhs and odd (3) Two crores and odd, (4) 66 lakhs and odd and (5) Rs. 6 lakhs and odd. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised similar contentions in respect of this petitioner also. It was also pointed out that Mewa Singh Sonar was the Joint Director of Agriculture (Inputs) from 29.5.1992 to 25.11.1993 while the other petitioner-Gurbux Singh was the Joint Director Agriculture (Inputs) from 25.11.1993 to 14.6.1994. 13. The learned counsel for the State pointed out that though in annexure P-4 (relating to Mewa Singh Sonar), it has been stated that the PAIC has not submitted the details regarding the quantity sold district-wise/ retail dealerwise for verification of the Chief Agriculture Officers, and that the PAIC will be asked to give the details at the earliest, it has been submitted for payment by this petitioner and the payment of Rs. 38,88,920/- has been recommended by the Chief Inspector of Fertilizers, and countersigned by petitioner- Mewa Singh Sonar on 12.10.1993 whereas the certificate regarding verification has been given only on the next date i.e. 13.10.1993 only and this will show the connivance between all the accused. But the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the bills (annexures P-3 and P-4) were submitted by the PAIC the Nodal Agency, and both of them were verified and signed by the Chief Inspector of Fertilizers posted at the factory itself. He further contended that in view of the fact that all other co-accused have been released on bail, these petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail. 14. Learned counsel for the State contended that the investigation has shown that a huge fraud has been committed as a result of the conspiracy between the several accused. He further contends that investigation revealed that the manufacturer, who has to give the numbers of the trucks or the vehicles used for the transportation of the fertilizer, had given the number of small cars, auto-rickshaws and even two-wheelers as having been used for the transportation. He further contends that investigation revealed that the manufacturer, who has to give the numbers of the trucks or the vehicles used for the transportation of the fertilizer, had given the number of small cars, auto-rickshaws and even two-wheelers as having been used for the transportation. He also contended that while the manufacture has to give the number of the truck or the vehicle used for transportation, the dealer has to maintain a register containing the details of the sale, the name and address of the farmer to whom the fertilizer was sold, and also the acknowledgment of the farmer evidencing the sale. 15. Learned counsel for the State also contended that the contention of the petitioners that Joint Directors Agriculture (Inputs) are not responsible, and that they merely countersign, cannot be accepted inasmuch as all the Joint Directors of Agriculture (Inputs) posted at the State-head office have been invested with the powers of the Inspectors of Fertilizers as is seen from annexure R-1, and the powers of the Inspectors are found at Clause 28 of the Fertilizer Control Order. 16. The learned counsel for the State also contended that the distribution of work amongst the Joint Directors of Agriculture (Inputs) (annexure R-6) shows that the Joint Directors of Agriculture (Inputs) are responsible for the planning and implementation of the schemes relating to manures and fertilizers, and implementation of the Fertilizer Control Orders among other works, and therefore, the petitioners cannot say that they have no role to play. 17. Pointing out these factors, the learned counsel for the State and also Mr. R.S. Bains contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in this case, and therefore the petitioners should not be granted bail in anticipation of arrest. 18. By taking into consideration all these factors, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that lakhs and lakhs of rupees have been granted as subsidy for manufacture and supply of the fertilizer in question, pursuant to the scheme of the Government. The allegation is that the manufacturer, the officers of the Agriculture Department and PAIC, the dealers etc. have conspired together in creating fake records as if the fertilizers was manufactured and supplied to the farmers at the rates fixed by the Government. The allegation is that the manufacturer, the officers of the Agriculture Department and PAIC, the dealers etc. have conspired together in creating fake records as if the fertilizers was manufactured and supplied to the farmers at the rates fixed by the Government. The allegation is also that the records have been created as if the fertilizers have been transported in vehicles which included even two wheelers. Therefore, whether the petitioner is named or not in the F.I.R., does not matter when admittedly the petitioners had been working as Joint Directors (Inputs) during the relevant period. In these circumstances that is also a ground for custodial interrogation to find out who are all involved in this crime. The contention that the Joint Director of Agriculture (Inputs) is in no way responsible, cannot be accepted in view of what I have pointed out already. Even though in the note it has been stated that the details regarding sale are not available, the notes submitted for payments has been countersigned by the petitioners in the respective notes concerning them. In one case, it is found that even the verification has been made on the next day, whereas the note had been submitted on the earlier day and orders have been obtained. Therefore, in my view, custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. The fact that bail has been granted to others including the Director-S.S. Bains, is no for granting bail to the petitioners. 19. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. 20. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.