Chandigarh, March 29
Additional district and sessions judge Raj Rahul Garg today exonerated Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee chief Rajinder Kaur Bhattal from all charges in the 20 lakh embezzlement case against her during her brief tenure as Chief Minister after the Vigilance Bureau had given her a clean chit.
When contacted, Rajinder Kaur Bhattal was not available for comment. Her son-in-law Vikram Singh Bajwa, who was present in court, said, “We had full faith in the judiciary and are satisfied with the decision.”
On the complaint of Balwant Singh Dhillon, president of the District Amateur Boxing Association, Bathinda, an FIR was lodged against Bhattal by the Vigilance Bureau.
During the pendency of the trial, the state government had placed a few receipts on record saying, “It was found that there was a file containing receipts with regard to distribution of the disputed Rs 20 lakh out of the Chief Minister's relief fund. These receipts were inadvertently mixed up with other files”.
The investigating agency in the case had found the receipts that showed the use of Rs 20 lakh taken by Bhattal from the PM’s Relief Fund.
The investigating agency in the cancellation report had reiterated that receipts placed on record regarding the expenditure of Rs 20 lakh made by Bhattal from the CM's relief fund were found to be genuine on investigation.
Following this, the Vigilance Department in December 2006, had moved an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial court pleading the court to accept the cancellation report filed by them.
Thus, no case was made out and it was pleaded that the court
should allow them to withdraw the case. The complainant stated before the court that the application for withdrawal of the case has been filed in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The complainant had accused Punjab Vigilance Department of fabricating evidence to help Bhattal’s exoneration and demanded registration of cases against the vigilance officials who have fabricated false evidence to favour Bhattal.
It is pertinent to mention here that in December 2001, the complainant had stated that he didn’t want to pursue the case and was convinced that the accused was innocent. He had also made a request to terminate the embezzlement case. Thereafter, he made a representation before the Punjab Government for the same.
In 2002, charges were framed against Bhattal under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
