Chandigarh, January 27
The Punjab Government apparently suffered a setback after the Punjab and Haryana High Court today rejected its plea for deferring the framing of charges against Deputy Chief Minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. The court held that the same would not be in the interest of justice. Another petition challenging the rejection of prayer for Ms Bhattal’s discharge was also turned down. She has been accused of misappropriating Rs 20 lakh from Chief Minister’s relief fund.
In its application, the state had claimed that a file containing receipts regarding distribution of money out of the fund had been traced. As such framing of charges should be deferred. The application was filed in less than a month after the standoff between her and Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh had ended.
Pronouncing orders this morning, Mr Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel ruled: “Chief Minister’s relief fund is a trust property. Transparency and account with regard to the fund cannot be wished away — whatever be the amount of discretion in handling such a fund. This requirement of law arises from the very nature of the fact that such fund is public money. It is more so when rules require the grant of sanction and that too for approved objects and purpose and further require audit and monitoring of the end use”.
The judge further ruled: “Thus, deferring the framing of charges cannot be held to be in the interest of justice. I, therefore, reject the prayer for directing that framing of charges be deferred....”
Regarding the file containing the receipts, the judge held: “The file is said to have been suddenly found. There is no file number. There is no sanction order. There is nothing as to who applied for relief out of the fund, and whether the relief was sanctioned, and for what purpose such sanction was accorded. In most of the receipts, the purpose of granting financial aid was not mentioned”.
The judge concluded: “While dismissing both the petitions, that is the revision petition against the rejection of prayer for discharge, as well as prayer for deferring the framing of charges, I make it clear that nothing said herein will be construed as an expression of final opinion on the merits of the trial. I also direct that the file produced by state counsel be sent to the trial court in a sealed cover so that if either party wishes to rely on the matter therein, they may apply for it”.
It may be recalled that the state, in its application, had earlier sought directions for deferring the framing of charges in first information report registered on May 22, 2001, at Ferozepore. The state had asserted that the process should be deferred “during the pendency of another application for further investigation.”
Giving details, the state counsel had claimed that the application was moved by it on December 24 last year, requesting the trial court to defer the process as a file containing receipts had been traced.
Opposing the plea, counsel for complainant Balwant Singh Dhillon had asserted that the veracity of the receipts should to be examined by forensic experts at different places. Moreover, it was important for the state to give details on the date when the receipts were discovered, along with the name of the officer who found the same.
