Bathinda, January 29
The case pertaining to the issuance of non-bailable warrants against former Chief Minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal in a corruption case took a new turn last evening when the Special Judge asked the SP (Vigilance), Bathinda, to execute the same personally.
Official sources said first the non-bailable warrants, which were issued on January 22 by the court of the Special Judge here, were marked to the SHO, police station, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepore, for execution.
The non-bailable warrants were issued against Mrs Bhattal when she failed to appear in the court of the Special Judge here after the issuance of a summons against her in the corruption case registered against her under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409, IPC, on January 2.
The corruption case was registered against Mrs Bhattal for her alleged involvement in bungling in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund and a complaint in this connection was moved by Mr Balwant Singh Dhillon, President, District Amateur Boxing Association, Bathinda, in the court of the then Special Judge.
The Special Judge, who issued a summons against Mrs Bhattal on January 2 for securing her personal appearance on January 7, has adjourned hearing in the case till January 22.
Earlier, Vigilance Bureau officials, who are making investigations into the case, after it was registered at Vigilance Bureau police station, Ferozepore on May 22, 2001, moved an application on January 2, 2002, in the court of the Special Judge for the return of the challan which they presented on December 27, 2001.
Mr Khushi Mohommad, DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, in an application moved into the court of the Special Judge, pleaded that the challan presented in the same court against Mrs Bhattal should be returned as the court of the Special Judge, Chandigarh, was the proper forum where the challan should have been presented as the trial was to take place in the court under whose territorial jurisdiction the offence was committed.
The second ground taken by Mr Mohommad was that Mrs Bhattal was a public servant as Chief Minister of Punjab when she allegedly committed the offence. So it was necessary to take sanction for prosecution from the competent authorities before taking cognizance as envisaged under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197, Cr P.C. The required sanction was not obtained, the DSP said.
Mr Dhillon in an application moved on January 5, 2002, also pleaded that a defective challan had been presented in the special court and it would lead to the failure of the case initiated at his instance. He added that even the prosecution agency had also admitted this fact.
A case of corruption was registered against Mrs Bhattal on the directions of the DGP (Vigilance), Punjab. The then Special Judge ordered the Vigilance Bureau to make investigations into the complaint moved in his court in connection with the alleged misappropriation of Rs 20 lakh by Mrs Bhattal, which she withdrew from Chief Minister’s Relief Fund in 1996 when she was heading the state government. The DGP (Vigilance), Punjab, ordered the registration of a corruption case against Mrs Bhattal when the local Vigilance Bureau office sent the orders of the Special Judge to higher authorities for further action.
In his application Mr Dhillon also mentioned that law required that a defect in the challan could always be rectified lest it should result that the entire proceedings become an exercise in futility. There was no provision in the law, which prohibited such a procedure from being adopted. The hon’ble court had ample powers to allow an opportunity to the prosecution to rectify the defect, which might prove fatal in the continuance or taking cognizance of the proceedings against the public servant.
The provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were also mandatory in nature. Everything was allowable in the code in the interest of justice and every defect of procedure could be rectified. It was always in the interest of justice that such rectification should take place at the initial stage to save harassment for the parties concerned.
That the apex court had also held that the petitioner was vitally interested in the prosecution of a case initiated by him even after the recording of an FIR as a sequence of his petition. It was more so when the prosecution had acknowledged the vital defects, which had crept in in the incomplete challan.
It was, therefore, prayed that the defective/incomplete challan put in by the prosecution without proper investigation and
without obtaining proper sanction might be ordered to be withdrawn or rectified
in the interest of justice.
It was further prayed that in the alternative the proceedings in the hon’ble court might be stayed to allow rectification of challan or completion of proper investigations so that the proceedings might be culminated in accordance with law and irreparable loss might not accrue to the cause of justice.
Official sources said that the Vigilance Bureau Department authorities had been working out a strategy to carry out the compliance of the order of the special court by executing the non-bailable warrants against Mrs Bhattal, who had been campaigning in the Lehra Gaga Assembly segment from where she had been trying her luck again to make it to Vidhan Sabha as the Congress candidate.
No Vigilance Bureau official made any comment on this issue when contacted by this correspondent and refused to tell that when Mrs Bhattal would be arrested and subsequently produced in the court of the Special Judge.
