Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 3374 (PNJ)

Vikram Kumar v. State of Haryana

2023-12-12

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2023
JUDGMENT Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. - FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 4 11.03.2022 State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Since the common question is involved, so both the petitions are taken together. Aggrieved by the dismissal of application Annexure P-5 by Sessions Court and refusing to issue directions to Nodal Officers to preserve and provide call details, CAF, and tower locations of the police officials, the accused has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by filing the present petition on 01.09.2023. Similarly, in the connected petition assailing the order of refusal to summon the record of service provider phone company, petitioner has come up before up this Court. 2. Facts of the case are being extracted from reply dated 07.11.2023 filed by concerned DySP which reads as under:- "2. The true facts of the case are that on 11-03-2022, the complainant Paramjit S/o Gurbhej Singh R/o H.No. 1475, Section 13/17 Panipat, handed over his complaint to Inspector Sachin wherein he has stated that he has been authorised to manage the affairs of land on the basis of power of attorney, which got executed by Rishipal who is the owner of same land falling in khewat no. 9, having area of 22 K-3M, situated in village Hari Singhpura, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal and he wanted to raise a colony upon the said land and someone told him that, for that purpose the then District Town Planner (in short DTP) is to be met and otherwise they cannot develop colony. Upon this, he (complainant) contacted Balbir Singh the then driver of Vikram Singh (petitioner-accused), DTP, Karnal who told him that he (Balbir Singh) would make arrangement of his meeting with Vikram Singh, DTP and for this purpose, he (complainant) had to give Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lacs) as bribe and it was told that thereafter he may do the said work. The documents of the land were also sought. He (complainant) was unable to make arrangement of so much amount. The driver of DTP also made demand of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for himself, out of which Rs.5,000/- was given to him. Now Balbir Singh is demanding Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) for DTP, Karnal and Rs. 5,000/- for himself. He (complainant) was not willing to give the said amount. He (complainant) was unable to make arrangement of so much amount. The driver of DTP also made demand of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for himself, out of which Rs.5,000/- was given to him. Now Balbir Singh is demanding Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lacs) for DTP, Karnal and Rs. 5,000/- for himself. He (complainant) was not willing to give the said amount. He also met DTP Vikram Singh the help of driver of DTP, Karnal and he also recorded the conversation between them during said meeting. Upon which the present FIR No. 4 dated 11-03-2022 (Annexure P-1) was registered under section 7 PC Act 1988 (7A, 13(1) (b) r/w, 13(2) PC Act 1988, 81 Registration Act 1908 & 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC added subsequently) in the Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau (now Anti Corruption Bureau), Karnal Range, Karnal. 3. That thereafter, on the application of investigating officer, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal appointed independent official witnesses viz. Sh. Dharm Singh Suhag, Executive Engineer, UHBVN as Duty Magistrate and Sh. Rajiv Dhillon, Sub Divisional Officer, UHBVN as Shadow Witness. Raiding team was constituted and after applying Phenolphthalein powder on currency notes of Rs. 5,05,000/-, the said notes were handed over to the complainant Paramjit Singh who was instructed to hand over Rs. 5,00,000 lac to Vikram Kumar, DTP and Rs. 5,000/- to his driver Balbir Singh on raising their demand for the same. The shadow witness was also instructed to see and hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and was further directed to give the appointed signal to the raiding team. The complainant and the shadow witness acted accordingly and thereafter Vikram Kumar (petitioner-accused), DTP Karnal and his driver Balbir Singh (co-accused) were apprehended red handed on spot and Rs. 5,00,000/- lacs tainted money was recovered from the right hand of Vikram Kumar, DTP and Rs. 5,000/- tainted money was recovered from the purse of his driver Balbir Singh. The hands of both the accused and complainant were washed separately in the separate solutions which turned light pink. The recovered currency notes and the nips of hand washes were converted into separate sealed parcels and were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos which were duly signed by the witnesses. Thereafter, both the accused i.e. Vikram Singh, DTP and his driver Balbir Singh were arrested in the present case. Vikram Singh, DTP (petitioner-accused) also got recovered from spot Rs. Thereafter, both the accused i.e. Vikram Singh, DTP and his driver Balbir Singh were arrested in the present case. Vikram Singh, DTP (petitioner-accused) also got recovered from spot Rs. 78,34,630/-, personal diary, photocopy of special power of attorney in respect of Rishipal (owner of land situated in Village Hari Singh Pura, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal), copy of jamabandi and these articles were taken into possession Separate list was prepared in respect of Rs. 78,34,630/- Statement of complainant Paramjit Singh under section 164 Cr.P.C was also got recorded on the same day. During the course of investigation, Raj Baksh (co accused) was also joined in investigation and he was arrested in the present case. One Mobile Phone make Vivo (dual SIM) and one mobile phone make Samsung were taken into possession. On his personal search Rs. 80,000/- were also recovered and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Raj Baksh got recovered Rs. 4,88,000/- from his bed, kept in his House No. 387 Sector-15 Sonipat, which were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. 4. That during the course of investigation and on the basis of recovered record/evidence and statement of witnesses, it was found that Vikram Kumar, DTP (petitioner-accused) had demanded and accepted bribe money from complainant Paramjit of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the same was recovered from him on the spot in lieu of helping him in developing an unauthorised colony and without interrupting in the area of Village Hari Singh Pura, Tahsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Vikram Kumar, DTP had also got recovered Rs. 78,34,630/- and documents from spot. Balbir Singh (co-accused), driver in collusion with Vikram Kumar, DTP demanded and accepted Rs. 5,000/- as bribe money from complainant Paramjit and the same was recovered from him on the spot in lieu of arranging a meeting with Vikram Kumar, DTP and helping him developing the unauthorised colony in the area of Village Hari Singh Pura, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Balbir Singh (co-accused), driver in collusion with Vikram Kumar, DTP demanded and accepted Rs. 5,000/- as bribe money from complainant Paramjit and the same was recovered from him on the spot in lieu of arranging a meeting with Vikram Kumar, DTP and helping him developing the unauthorised colony in the area of Village Hari Singh Pura, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Similarly, Raj Baksh (co-accused) Tahsildar, Karnal in collusion with other co-accused demanded and took bribe money for himself and for Vikram Kumar, DTP for getting illegal work done in their offices and illegally registered the registry of unapproved areas by using Property ID's and khasra numbers of approved areas/colonies and also without obtaining the mandatory NOC from DTP under rule 7A of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act 2017 and cheated the Government and public at large by using forged documents. Raj Baksh had also got recovered Rs. 5,68,000/-and admitted that he had given Rs. 14,50,000/- to Vikram, DTP which were already recovered from Vikram DTP (petitioner- accused) within Rs. 78,34,630/-." 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as reply and its analysis and appreciation would lead to following outcome. 4. In a nutshell, the petitioner's case is that call details are required to establish the movements of police party to Panchkula. 5. On this, State counsel submits that the fact is not denied for the reason that initially during interrogation, the petitioner had disclosed about the concealment of bribe money in Panchkula, as such the police party has proceeded towards Panchkula, but on the way, he told about the said concealment in Panipat and after that the police party also changed direction to Panipat. Thus, they are not denying the allegation and rather, the prosecution case is that it was the petitioner who mis-lead them. The State has also referred to para no.4 of the reply dated 07.11.2023 to corroborate the stand which reads as follows:- "That the contents of Para No. 4 of the petition are partially admitted to the extent that the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 11-3-2022 and he was in police custody from 11-3-2022 to 22-3-2022. However, the contents of rest of the para are wrong and hence denied. However, the contents of rest of the para are wrong and hence denied. It is submitted that during the course of investigation on 13-3-2022, the petitioner-accused was taken to Panchkula for recovery but he refused on the way and thereafter he was taken to Panipat for recovery but there also near toll tax at Panipat, petitioner-accused refused upon which he was brought back to Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau (now Anti Corruption Bureau), Karnal. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused was interrogated and he suffered his disclosure statement which was reduced into writing and after that petitioner-accused was medico legally examined at Civil Hospital, Karnal and was lodged in Police Station Civil Line, Karnal. It is pertinent to mention here that neither any third degree methods to torture petitioner-accused were applied as no such injuries, as alleged by petitioner-accused, are mention in his medico legally examination which was conducted as Civil Hospital, Karnal on that day nor any false evidence was created against him." 6. An analysis of the contents of reply coupled with the submission made by State counsel on instructions from the Investigator shows that there is no occasion for this Court to hand over the call details of the Investigator to the petitioner. While handing over call details, this Court has to keep in mind that the police gets information from their informants and under covers. In such call details, there is a possibility of the police officials making calls and receiving calls from such informants and under covers and in case this Court for whimsical reasons provide the call details of the Investigator to the petitioner, it might expose and put life to risk of such informants and under covers. 7. Even the impugned order does not suffer any infirmity and calls for no interference. Petition stands dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.