M A I N   N E W S

Bhattal briefs Jacob on case
Sarbjit Dhaliwal
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 1
Mrs Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, a Cabinet Minister in Capt Amarinder Singh’s Government, today apprised the Punjab Governor, Lt-Gen J.F.R. Jacob (retd), of her case, according to informed sources.

The sources said that Ms Bhattal informed the Governor that the case against her was false and motivated, besides being part of a political vendetta. She conveyed to the Governor that the authorities concerned had proceeded against her without following the laid-down provisions of law, and without getting pre-requisite sanction from the competent authority. She had, it is believed, told the Governor that a similar case against her and two other former Chief Ministers was filed through a writ petition and the case was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 20, 2000.

The sources said Mrs Bhattal had requested the Governor to take action against the Vigilance Bureau and other officers who had filed the case against her without following the provisions of law and proper sanction. Mrs Bhattal, according to the sources, will also apprise the Chief Minister of the facts of the case and seek action against the officials concerned who had proceeded against her.

It may be mentioned that showing exemplary haste, the authorities concerned moved an application on November 28 in a local court praying that the challan against Mrs Bhattal may kindly be taken on record and further proceedings in the matter be initiated as per law. The challan was earlier presented in the court of the Special Judge Bathinda, who returned the same on November 26, saying that his court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. Following this development, the prosecution swiftly moved from Bathinda and filed the challan within two days, precisely on November 28, in a local court against Mrs Bhattal.

Mrs Bhattal’s has become a hot topic of discussion in political circles . It has generated a lot of political controversy in the Congress at the state and national levels. There are reports emerging from Delhi that the Congress high command is upset over these developments in the state. However, as party President Sonia Gandhi is abroad, the issue may also be put up before her on return.

Legal experts say that as Mrs Bhattal was a public servant when the alleged offence occurred and is a public servant now when a challan has been filed against her in a local court without sanction from the competent authority, the case could not be moved against her. Without furnishing all relevant documents by the prosecuting agency before the court, it will be difficult to take cognisance of the case by the court, say legal experts. When this case comes up for hearing, legal luminaries will debate before the court whether in can take cognisance of the case or not.

The Bhattal case, which has ignited political atmosphere in the state, has taken several turns and twists. In this case, the complainant was Mr Balwant Singh, a Bathinda-based advocate. He filed an application against Mrs Bhattal in the court of the Special Judge, Bathinda, under section 409, IPC and under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He marked the application to the court of Mr Surjit Singh, who forwarded the same to the Vigilance Bureau.

After investigation by the Vigilance Bureau, a challan was presented in the Bathinda Court on December 27, 2001. However, after presentation of the challan, Mr Khushi Mohd, DSP, Vigilance, Bathinda, moved an application for the return of the challan on January 2 on the ground that the challan should have been filed at Chandigarh and not at Bathinda .It was also stated the sanction, which was mandatory for prosecuting the accused, had also not been taken.

Even Mr Balwant Singh had moved an application before the Bathinda court, following the dismissal of a writ petition against three former Chief Ministers by the high court , that “since the matter had been adjudicated and the applicant was satisfied that there was no misappropriation involved in the matter, the applicant does not want to proceed with his aforesaid complaint.”