|
|
Badals acquitted in corruption case
Mohali, October 1 It is an exceptional case wherein not only the complainant and the material evidence but also the senior Vigilance officers, who investigated the case, have not supported the prosecution. The Investigating Officer in the case, SSP Vigilance Surinder Pal Singh, had deviated from the contents of the challan presented in the court. The Special Judge, in his 82-page judgment, observed that since none of the material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and there was no incriminating evidence against the accused regarding accepting of bribe or illegal gratification by the Badals through other accused, there was no need to record their statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Pronouncing the order in the open court, the court ordered prosecution of the Investigating Officer, SSP, Vigilance, Surinder Pal Singh, and Supervisory Officer, DIG BK Uppal, for perjury and misconduct as they fabricated false evidence and harassed various government officers while recording their statements under threat. Rather than compliance, the Vigilance officials breached provisions of the CrPC. Directing the public prosecutor to file a complaint against the DIG and SSP, the court said it would be expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the two Vigilance officials under Sections 120 B (punishment for criminal conspiracy), 182 (false information with intention to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person), 193 (punishment for false evidence), 211 (false charge of offence made with intention to injure), 218 (public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture) and 219 (public servant in judicial proceedings corruptly making report). The conduct of Vigilance SP Harminder Pal Singh, DIG Gurinder Pal Singh and DIG S Chatopdya also requires to be scrutinised. Harminder Pal Singh and Gurinder Pal Singh stated that they were pressurised to make their statements under Section 164, CrPC. It would be appropriate for the Director-General of Police, Punjab Police, to take appropriate action against them. The DIG, S Chataupday, did not discharge his duties in a proper manner and failed to conduct the investigations in a satisfactory manner, the court has observed. The court observed that different yardsticks had been adopted while deciding upon the witnesses and the accused. While some persons like Kamaljit Singh, Surinder Singh, Harminderpal and Gurinderpal Singh Grewal, who had also allegedly paid bribe to the Chief Minister, were taken as witnesses, others like Pavittar, Darshan and Jagnandan Singh had been made accused. The Investigating Officer not only usurped the powers of the court, rather he granted unconditional pardon to them. The advocates, representing the accused, were Baldev Singh, Vikram Chadhuary, Satnam Singh Kaler, HS Paul and PS Brar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
The case: On June 24, 2003, the Punjab Vigilance Bureau had registered a case of disproportionate assets against 15 persons, including Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir. The trial began on June 5, 2007
Court’s observation: “It is crystal clear that due to misconduct on part of some persons, the trial has been reduced to a farce... The case of prosecution has crumbled due to malfeasance on part of the Vigilance officers, SSP Surinder Pal and DIG BK
Uppal... There it is manifest that the SSP and DIG falsely prepared statements and made false entries in the case diary in respect of statements and both presented the challan with wrong allegations.”
