Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 62 (PNJ)

Manmohan Singh Walia v. C. B. I. Chandigarh

2000-01-17

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J. - FIR No. 10 dated 3.2.98 under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at Police Station North, Chandigarh on a complaint dated 3.2.1998 by the Registrar of this High Court to the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh wherein it has been alleged as follows :- 2. A preliminary enquiry against M.S. Walia, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bhatinda was conducted and the findings of the Enquiry Officer disclosed that Mr. M.S. Walia opened a fixed deposit account No. 262663 affixing his photograph in Centurion Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. The address given on the account opening form is House No. 311, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. The fact that Mr. M.S. Walia is residing in a portion of this house is established from the statement of Mr. B.S. Bindra, Advocate, Chandigarh as well as from the fact that the telephone is in the name of Mr. M.S. Walia. Mr. M.S. Walia not only deposited Rs. 50,000/- in his own name, but also deposited Rs. 50,000/- each in three other fixed deposit accounts on 18.11.96 in the names of his wife, son and daughter. 3. Subsequently, another information was received that Mr. M.S. Walia alongwith his family members has obtained six bankers cheques on account of encashment of six F.D.Rs. of Rs. 50,000/- each (totalling Rs. 3.00 lacs) as detailed in the FIR in Centurian Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. Mr. M.S. Walia is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income which, he cannot satisfactorily account for. Mr. M.S. Walia joined service as Sub Judge on 6.8.97. 4. Subsequently, the High Court directed that the investigation of the case should be taken over by the C.B.I. Therefore, the C.B.I. has taken the investigation of this case as RC/19(A)/98, Chandigarh under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. The petitioners application for bail was dismissed by the Special Judge, Chandigarh, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for bail. After the arguments were heard on this petition, and orders were reserved, the petitioner then filed Crl. Misc. 35929 and 35930 of 1999 in Crl. Misc. 27741-M of 1999 under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for giving directions in this case. After the arguments were heard on this petition, and orders were reserved, the petitioner then filed Crl. Misc. 35929 and 35930 of 1999 in Crl. Misc. 27741-M of 1999 under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for giving directions in this case. In this miscellaneous application, the petitioner has alleged that he had filed an application for bail under Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Special Judge, Chandigarh which was disposed of by him on 5.11.99. The petitioner has alleged that incomplete challan has been put into court by the learned Public Prosecutor since no sanction has been obtained by the C.B.I. for prosecution of the petitioner-applicant, and that the documents have not been supplied to the petitioner since the prosecution wanted to arrange it properly. It has also been alleged that the petitioner requested that the incomplete copies may be supplied to the petitioner, but that request was not accepted by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 5.11.99 (annexure P-3). Therefore, the petitioner stated that these additional facts may also be placed on record. 6. I have heard the counsel for both the sides in the main application as well as the miscellaneous application and have perused the records on file. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no case is made out against the petitioner, that the petitioner has joined investigation more than 30 times and the Investigating Officer has questioned even the ladies in the family of the petitioner, and that the calculation and valuation of the assets of the petitioner has been done by the C.B.I., and therefore, there is no useful purpose in keeping him in judicial custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that all the documentary evidence being in the possession of the C.B.I., the continued detention of the petitioner will serve no purpose. According to him, even the tampering with the documents is not possible, and that during the long period of 18 months, there is no allegation that the petitioner made any effort to manipulate, fabricate or destroy any document or tamper with any document. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being a judicial officer is entitled to bail in the circumstances of the case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being a judicial officer is entitled to bail in the circumstances of the case. 8. But the learned counsel for the C.B.I., on the other hand, contends that the petitioner had filed earlier petition for bail in anticipation of arrest, but his request was declined, and that the petitioner had failed even before the Honble Supreme Court. He also contends that on a search of the house No. 311 at Sector 9-D, Chandigarh in the possession of the petitioner, a number of incriminating documents, bank pass-books, liquor were recovered. According to the C.B.I., the total value of the articles laying at the house is Rs. 2,41,380/-, although the petitioner had got filed a miscellaneous application in this Court through Dr. H.P. Singh claiming to be the purchaser praying for restoration of possession of the said house. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. also points out that the wife of the petitioner-Parminder Kaur who is only a house-wife, allegedly entered into an agreement for sale of certain property on 7.11.96 and is alleged to have received Rs. 3.00 lacs as earnest money which amount was allegedly deposited in fixed deposit accounts. According to the learned counsel for C.B.I., documents relating to investment in different banks, private parties and Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd. in the name of Mr. M.S. Walia and his family members were taken into possession, and that there are larger number of bank accounts involving huge amounts of which are beyond the status of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for C.B.I., the accused has no other source of income apart from his salary, and that he had also not intimated large number of transactions to the High Court. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also points out that the petitioner has purchased debentures of Vadhman Spinning and General Mills, but could not explain the source of money for the purchase of debentures and where he invested the money after selling these debentures in July-August 1998. According to the C.B.I., the petitioner had even fabricated the agreement dated 7.11.96 allegedly executed between the petitioners wife Parminder Kaur and M/s Mertinex Entex Industries Ltd., Ludhiana for sale of plot for Rs. 17.00 lacs and a receipt of Rs. 3.00 lacs in cash as advance. According to the C.B.I., the petitioner had even fabricated the agreement dated 7.11.96 allegedly executed between the petitioners wife Parminder Kaur and M/s Mertinex Entex Industries Ltd., Ludhiana for sale of plot for Rs. 17.00 lacs and a receipt of Rs. 3.00 lacs in cash as advance. According to him, another agreement dated 27.11.96 was also executed by them vide which Parminder Kaur had received Rs. 2.00 lacs as earnest money and a cancellation agreement to sale was also executed on the ground that the petitioner could not get permission to sell the plot from the High Court. According to the C.B.I. in fact, there was no request from the petitioner to the High Court to sell this plot in the name of his wife. The learned counsel for C.B.I. also contends that the proposed purchaser had also filed a Civil Suit against Parminder Kaur-wife of the petitioner for recovering the amount, and that this suit has been filed only to get a decree by mutual consent to fabricate a defence. This apart, the learned counsel, for the C.B.I. also contends that the petitioner did not coooperate with the investigation, has not filled up the proforma I to VI relating to purchase and sale of movable and immovable property etc, though the same was forwarded to him through the Registrar of this Court. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. also contends that since the enquiry was initiated in November, 1997, the petitioner became alert, concealed his assets and had managed withdrawal of amounts from his accounts in different banks. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. also points out that the wife of the petitioner-Parminder Kaur and one Malwinder Kaur were having a saving bank account in State Bank of Patiala, Nawanshahar since 1992, but Malwinder Kaur had denied to have invested any money. According to the C.B.I., the petitioner had not explained larger number of transactions also. 9. Pointing out these aspects, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. contends that already petitioner had manipulated and had made attempts to fabricate evidence and if he is released on bail, he will certainly tamper with the investigation and even the witnesses. 10. According to the C.B.I., the petitioner had not explained larger number of transactions also. 9. Pointing out these aspects, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. contends that already petitioner had manipulated and had made attempts to fabricate evidence and if he is released on bail, he will certainly tamper with the investigation and even the witnesses. 10. In the miscellaneous applications 35929 & 35930, the petitioner has stated that he had filed an application under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code before the Special Judge, Chandigarh which has been disposed of by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 5.11.99. According to him, only an incomplete charge-sheet has been filed as no sanction has been obtained by the C.B.I. for prosecuting the petitioner. He also contends that even the documents have not been supplied to the petitioner on the ground that they have to be arranged properly. He also contends that his request for giving the incomplete copies was also rejected. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this fact may also be taken into consideration. But the main application is one filed under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for bail, which is not based upon Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code Even otherwise, I find from the orders passed by the learned Special Judge on 5.11.99 that the charge-sheet has been filed, and the petitioner had filed the application under Section 167(2) on 5.11.99. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. also points out that the charge-sheet had been filed on 4.11.99 and it is only thereafter i.e. 5.11.99, the application under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. He also contends that all the documents had been produced and they were being arranged so that the documents could be given in an arranged manner to avoid any technical objection later on. Since it is pointed out that the charge-sheet has been filed on 4.11.99 itself, on the petition filed under Section 167(2), the petitioner cannot be released on bail. If the ground taken by the petitioner that no sanction has been taken for prosecuting him is true, then it will be open to him to take appropriate pleas regarding the same at the time of framing the charge, and also to take recourse to any relief as per law. 11. Though the facts mentioned in Crl. Misc. Nos. If the ground taken by the petitioner that no sanction has been taken for prosecuting him is true, then it will be open to him to take appropriate pleas regarding the same at the time of framing the charge, and also to take recourse to any relief as per law. 11. Though the facts mentioned in Crl. Misc. Nos. 35929-35930 of 1999 are taken into consideration, I hold that the petitioner cannot be granted bail in this petition even by taking these facts into consideration. 12. Therefore, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by both the sides, but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, Crl. M. 27741-M of 1999 is dismissed. Petition dismissed.