Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 218 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. Ramesh Bais

2024-01-23

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2024
JUDGMENT : ANOOP CHITKARA, J. 1. Aggrieved by refusal to summon the respondent vide order dated 04.03.2020 passes by the trial Court for the allegations of taking a bribe of Rs. 2,50,000/- for assuring him to provide a petrol station, the petitioner/complainant has come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition way back in the year 2004. 2. Initially, an application i.e. CRM-60436-2004 was moved for treating CRM-36147-M-2004 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C as a criminal revision. Vide order dated 04.01.2005, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said application and the petition was registered as criminal revision. On 21.03.2005, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and eight weeks’ time was granted to furnish the correct address of the respondent and it was ordered that list the matter after service is complete. After that, the matter was listed on 17.07.2019 and from that date, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Thereafter, on 15.11.2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had issued notice to the petitioner. As per report of Registry dated 11.01.2024, notice issued to the petitioner has been received back with the report that the petitioner is avoiding the service and as such, this Court had appointed Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate as legal aid counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner-Bhupinder Singh had filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Hisar against respondent-Ramesh Bias, who at that _me was working as Minister of the State for Information and Broad Casting, Government of India for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 IPC read with Section 13 of PC Act. It would be appropriate to extract the said complaint which reads as follows: 1. That the complainant is residing in Urban Estate No. II, and is a peace loving and innocent citizen. He had good relation with the accused and both have been visited each other _me and again. The complainant also visited the place of accused during the marriage of his daughter and also worked during his election campaign. 2. That the accused asked the complainant that he can get any thing done for him in the Govt. affairs like getting permit licence or Gas agency etc. He also told the complainant that he is having much influence amongst the Cabinet Minister and other Ministerial Staff. 2. That the accused asked the complainant that he can get any thing done for him in the Govt. affairs like getting permit licence or Gas agency etc. He also told the complainant that he is having much influence amongst the Cabinet Minister and other Ministerial Staff. He also proposed that he can manager a gas agency at Adampur for the complainant if he requires but for that the complainant have to spend Rs. ten lacs for obliging the concerned Minister and other concerned people. 3. That with the aforesaid in assurance the accused visited the house of the complainant at Hisar in Urban Estate in the late night on 13.10.99 and obtained an application duly signed the wife of the complainant with a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs in advance. Rest of the money was to be paid by the complainant on the allotment of gas agency for Adampur. At the relevant time S/Shri Virender Singh son of Shri Kali Ram r/o Karnal, Chander Raman son of Sh. Ghisa Ram r/o Khatolti (Distt. Mohindergarh), Yogesh Kumar son of Shri G.S. Yadav and Rajinder Singh, resident of Hisar and the father of the complainant and other family members were also present there. The accused promised to get the work done with full confidence. 4. That the complainant, thereafter went on meeting the accused time and again with a request to get the gas agency allotted in the name of his wife but the accused kept the matter lingering on, on one pretext or the other. The accused always expressed the full confidence for favour to the complainant in the matter. 5. That about 3 months ago, the complainant requested and assured that if he unable to get his work done then the money should be returned. Upon this the accused felt arrogant and changed his tone and told him that his money would be returned after some time. 6. That thereafter the accused gave a telephone call to the complainant with a threat to kill him if he pressed for early demand of money. The complainant thereafter issued a notice to the accused for the returned of money upon which the accused again felt annoyed and threatened the complainant to kill. 7. That the accused has cheated the complainant of Rs. The complainant thereafter issued a notice to the accused for the returned of money upon which the accused again felt annoyed and threatened the complainant to kill. 7. That the accused has cheated the complainant of Rs. 2.5 lacs by deceitful means and obtained the money as a bribe from the complainant for himself and for the concerned minister and other staff. So the accused has committed offence under section 420/506 of the IPC and section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Vide impugned order dated 31.01.2004, learned Special Judge under PC Act, Hisar refused to issue summons and dismissed the complaint. The grounds for refusal to issue summon were that the complainant had examined two witnesses to support his allegation of payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-. PW 2 had stated that the packets were given to the respondent, whereas, PW-3 had stated that currency notes were given. PW 2 explicitly mentioned that packets were given in which as per him there were currency notes. PW 3 contradicted him by saying that currency notes were given and he did not say that the notes were in the packets. In addition to this, the petitioner was silent that how the money was handed over. Another reason to refuse issuance of summon to the respondent was that the petitioner could not point out the source of Rs. 2,50,000/- and also at that time the respondent was not working as a Petroleum Minister and he had no role to play in the petroleum ministry. Learned Special Court refused to take cognizance of the complainant’s statement that respondent had assured him allotment of gas agency. After dismissal of the complaint, the petitioner had come up before this Court on the ground that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and had rejected the complaint merely on conjectures and surmises. 5. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner does not refer to anywhere that what was not appreciated and what were conjectures and surmises. As already stated above, petitioner’s counsel stopped appearing on his behalf from 21.03.2005 onwards till date. The petitioner himself also did not appear nor did he ask for any assistance. 5. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner does not refer to anywhere that what was not appreciated and what were conjectures and surmises. As already stated above, petitioner’s counsel stopped appearing on his behalf from 21.03.2005 onwards till date. The petitioner himself also did not appear nor did he ask for any assistance. However, this Court could have dismissed the present petition in default for non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel but in the larger interest of justice, this Court appointed the legal aid counsel on his behalf. 6. I have heard legal aid counsel at length. 7. In the case of Shivjee Singh Versus Nagendra Tiwary and others, (2010) 7 SCC 578 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court hold as follows: “16. The object of examining the complainant and the witnesses is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint and determine whether there is a prima facie case against the person who, according to the complainant has commi7ed an offence. If upon examination of the complainant and/or witnesses, the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied that a case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence then he is required to issue process.” 8. Nothing had stopped the complainant to examine any accountant or somebody to show that how he arranged Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash. He did not even mention the source of such money. Coupled with this, the Special Judge had refused to issue summon to the respondent -Ramesh Bias because of the contradictions in the testimonies of PWs 2 and 3. 9. In the entirety of facts and circumstances and at such a belated stage, this Court does not incline to interfere in the impugned order and the present petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. This Court appreciates the valuable assistance of Legal Aid Counsel. Concerned official of the Legal Services Authority to release his fee immediately in accordance with rules. Petition dismissed.