Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2004 Date of Decision: May 10, 2010 Partap Singh Chautala ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.H.P.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Satyaveer Singh Yadav, Deputy Advocate General Haryana Mr.R.S.Tacoria,Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. for short). challenging order dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Special Judge Hisar whereby the accused- respondent No.2 was ordered to be acquitted of the charge framed under Section 13(i) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act'). The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present case was registered on the basis of complaint Ex.P109 made by Chaudhary Partap Singh son of Chaudhary Devi Lal Former Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2004 2 Chief Minister of Haryana and Former Deputy Prime Minister of India to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar. On the basis of which formal FIR Ex.P110 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, Complainant alleged that accused was a Cabinet Minister in the State of Haryana from 20.6.1997 to 6.4.1991. During this period he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. His father inherited three acres, five kanals and 5 marlas of agricultural land in Bhattu Kalan, He was not even an income tax payee. He belongs to a poor family. Before 1977, accused and his wife Smt. Krishna were running a primary school in Mohalla Rampura, Hisar to earn their livelihood. Both of them were living in a rented house at Hisar. In the year 1977 Chaudhary Devi Lal became the Chief Minister of Haryana and he was appointed as his Assistant Political Secretary. Accused came close to Chaudhary Devi Lal. Chaudhary Devi Lal nominated him as a candidate of the lok Dal Party in the year 1982 from Bhattu Kalan Constituency. He won the election on the ticket of Lok Dal Party in the year 1982. He remained as MLA from 1982 to 1987. Again in the year 1987 elections to the Haryana Assembly were held and he won as Lok Dal Party nominee from Bhattu Kalan Constituency. The amount of salary received by the accused during the said period was Rs.1,98,649.15 P. His share in the ancestral house No.432 in Defence Colony, Hisar was Rs.20,000/-. He had spent Rs.15,000/- as cash in hand as per property return filed by him. The expenditure on education of his son Gaurav was over Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2004 3 Rs.51,000/-, it was over Rs.98,000/- on telephone and over Rs.72,000/- on house hold expenses. Adding the amount paid on account of consumption of electricity etc. and the aforesaid items of expenditure, the total expenditure came to Rs.2,23,903.37P. As regards assets the allegations are that the accused purchased plot No.112-P in Sector 15 Hisar in May,1990 for a total sum of Rs.6,39,681/-. Construction was raised over it and value of which was assessed in July, 1991 by the PWD authorities, vide documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 at Rs.21,00,000/-. He paid installments of over Rs.28,000/- in respect of plot No.1114 in Sector 14, Gurgaon. It was also alleged that he purchased land Benami in the name of his relations and friends by vide four sale deeds. The price was over Rs. 6,00,000/- and thus the total assets were over Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty lacs). In view of the above facts the assets were disproportionate to the extent of over Rs.29,91,000/-. During the investigation of the case the Investigation Officer recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. Accused was formally arrested during investigation of the case. After completion of investigation challan was put in Court against the accused” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Special Judge has acquitted respondent No.2 of the charge framed against him on the ground that as per the evidence on record, the plot bearing No.112-P in Sector 15-A Hisar has been transferred by the accused on 12.10.1990 without raising any construction. Respondent Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2004 4 No.2 had only spent Rs.1,28,685 at the time of purchase of the plot and the construction had been raised by the wife of respondent No.2 after the plot was transferred in her name. However, the prosecution had failed to establish that the transaction made by respondent No.2 was a benami transaction in favour of his wife. Wife of respondent No.2 had filed wealth tax returns and the income tax returns. The plot in question was duly mentioned in the wealth tax returns. The learned Special Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, has given a finding that the Investigating Agency had failed to collect any evidence to prove the benami transaction. Hence, the learned Special Judge held that it could be inferred that the wife of respondent No.2 was owner of the house and had spent the amount on construction of the same. Learned Special Judge has further held that there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the wealth tax and income tax returns. As regards the amount spent on plot No. 1114 in Sector 14, Gurgaon and the expenditure on telephone No. 72945 were concerned, the prosecution had failed to establish its case. No details had been given by the prosecution regarding TA/DA received by respondent No.2 while he was serving as a Minister. Learned Special Judge further observed that the present complaint was politically motivated as respondent No.2 had taken the initiative while moving a Special Leave Petition to the Apex Court with regard to an order passed by this Court whereby FIR dated 21.11.1987 registered against Chaudhary Bhajan Lal under Sections 161,165 of the Indian Penal Code was quashed by this Court. Respondent No. 2 had also moved a no confidence motion against Chaudhary Bhajan Lal. Respondent No.2 had been involved in this case at the instance of Chaudhary Bhajan Lal when he came in the power. The reasons given by the learned Special Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2004 5 Judge, while acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 of the charge framed against him are,thus,sound reasons. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional Jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant a retrial. A finding of acquittal, as per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial Court. The impugned judgment dated 27.3.2002, thus, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge May 10, 2010 arya Criminal Revision No. 1626 of 2004 6