In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1632 of 2002 Date of Decision:27-01-2009 State of Punjab ---Petitioner versus Mohinder Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. SABINA, J.(Oral) State has filed this revision petition challenging order dated 25.3.2002 passed by Special Judge, Rupnagar whereby respondent Mohinder Singh Pannu was discharged. F.I.R.No. 84 dated 8.9.1994 was registered against Mohinder Singh Pannu under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations against the respondent are that during the check period from February, 1976 to May 1988, he had assets more than his known source of income. After investigation of the case, challan was presented against Mohinder Singh Pannu. Learned Special Judge, Rupnagar summoned the relevant record of the case from the Vigilance Department and the same was attached with the challan file. After going through the Crl. Revision No. 1632 of 2002 -2- relevant record, the learned Special Judge, Rupnagar found that respondent had been successful in explaining his income and expenditure. The difference of income and expenditure was just Rs. 1661/-. In this regard, learned Special Judge, Rupnagar in paras 21 and 22 of its judgment held as under:- “21. Keeping in view the above circumstances, from the total expenditure of Rs.605653.00, the following amounts are required to be deleted from the expenditure statements. Rupees a) Purchase and construction cost 2,19,898.00 No.487 Phase-IX, SAS Nagar Mohali which were spent by Tarlok Singh father of Dalbir Kaur (wife of the accused) b) The amount of Rs.20,000/- stood 20,000.00 deposited in the name of Dalbir Kaur (wife of the accused) in her account, which she received from her parents as gifts during 20 years period from 1970 to 1989. c) Cost of scooter, Television and 16,768.00 Pistol which should be adjusted against the domestic expenditure out of salaries and is required to be deleted from the expenditure column. d) The amount which stood deposited in 20,000.00 the name of the accused Mohinder Singh during the check period of 12 years 2/76 to 5/88 and shown in his property statement No.135 for the year 1988 -------------------- TOTAL 2,76,666.00 --------------------- 22.The above said amount of Rs.2,76,666.00 is required to be deleted from the expenditure statement and thus the total Crl. Revision No. 1632 of 2002 -3- expenses of the accused during the check period 2/76 to 5/88 comes to Rs.3,28,987.00. As against this expenditure, the income of the accused during the check period comes to Rs.3,27,326.00. The full details have already been given above. It is evident that the difference of income and expenditure is just of Rs.1661.00 which is quite nominal difference and it cannot be accepted that the accused was having his assets dis-proportionate of his income. “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had since retired and the impugned order was passed in the year 2002. The difference of income and expenditure was just Rs. 1661/-. Learned Special Judge, Rupnagar has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the entire relevant record. After considering the same it was found that the difference of income and expenditure was Rs. 1661/-.In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 25.3.2002 passed by Special Judge, Rupnagar calls for no interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 27, 2009 PARAMJIT