Criminal Misc. No. M-18594 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M- 18594 of 2008 Date of decision : 25.8.2008 Om Parkash Chopra .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner was posted as Presiding Officer, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari at the relevant time. He heard arguments in indicated matter pending before the Consumer Forum, then presided over by him. The first informant/complainant was approached by one Ajay Kumar who (i.e. latter) informed him the (i.e. former) that if he wanted a favourable decision, he shall have to part with a sum of Rs.70,000/- which would be forwarded to the petitioner/applicant as illegal gratification. In that context, Ajay Kumar informed that it was otherwise proposed by the petitioner/applicant that a fine of Rs.7 lacs would be imposed upon the Insurance Company and a sum of Rs. 5 lacs would be imposed upon the Hospital, which was being run by the first informant. The Criminal Misc. No. M-18594 of 2008 -2- **** deal was ultimately settled for Rs.60,000/-. The aggrieved first informant gave a written complaint to the Vigilance Unit at Rewari. A trap was laid and the amount afore-mentioned was recovered from the possession of Ajay Kumar late in the evening of 21.6.2007. The prosecution allegation is that amount afore-mentioned had been demanded by the petitioner/applicant through his conduit Ajay Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant argues that there is no nexus between the petitioner/applicant and Ajay Kumar. In order to buttress the plea of innocence qua the petitioner/applicant, learned counsel argues that the recovery of alleged tainted money from Ajay Kumar effected on 21.6.2007 has no significance particularly when the judgment in the matter had already been delivered on 20.6.2007 and the counsel who represented first informant in that matter had received a copy of the judgment on 20.6.2007 itself. Learned State counsel points out that Ajay Kumar afore- mentioned lives in the immediate vicinity of the house of the petitioner/applicant and evidence about the nexus could be obtained only by the custodial interrogation of the applicant/petitioner. It is also argued that the relevant record (shown to the Court at the time of arguments) had been ante-dated inasmuch as the entry preceding entry No. 921 (purporting to be relatable to the present case) is to the effect that a copy of the order had been despatched to the applicant (in that case) on 4.7.2007. This, learned State counsel Criminal Misc. No. M-18594 of 2008 -3- **** proceeds to argue is indicative of the ante-dating of the relevant entry. In that very context, it is argued that, in the course of a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Sh. S.K.Gautam, Advocate, learned counsel who represented the first informant ( in the matter under reference), had told the police that the arguments were neither heard on 13.6.2007 nor on 19.6.2007 and were heard only on 20.6.2007 but the orders were not pronounced on that date. It was ascertained through the Clerk of the learned counsel that the orders would be pronounced on 22.6.2007. He brought forth the further information that the orders had purportedly been pronounced on 20.6.2007 and that a certified copy of the order had purportedly been prepared on 20.6.2007 which (copy) received by Sh. S.K.Gautam, Advocate on 21.6.2007. The decision was in favour of the first informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant further argues that the petitioner had joined investigation in terms of orders dated 25.7.2008 passed by M.M.S.Bedi, J. and person of the applicant is not required by the Police. The averment on facts is contested by the learned State counsel who argues that the person of the petitioner/applicant is very much required to enable the Investigating Agency to interrogate him in the context of nexus between the petitioner/applicant and Ajay Kumar afore-mentioned. It can be safely culled out from the respective contentions of the parties and the record shown to the Court that the Criminal Misc. No. M-18594 of 2008 -4- **** Investigating Agency would require the person of the petitioner/applicant for investigating the aspect of nexus which assumes added importance in view of the fact that the decision ultimately went in favour of first informant. It is also to be noticed that the zimini order dated 13.6.2007 to the effect that arguments in part had been heard is falsified by the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. S.K.Gautam, learned counsel who represented first informant before the Forum. It would, prima-facie, appear illogical that in the present case, arguments were 'heard' in part on 13.6.2007 and a week long adjournment was granted to conclude the arguments. This aspect of week long adjournment appears particular importance in the light of the fact that there was no oral evidence whatsoever on behalf of the respondents to the complaint and the evidence of respondent nos. 3 and 4 had been closed under the orders of the Forum. What for the matter came to be adjourned for further arguments, prima-facie, defies logical comprehension. By the very nature of things, the essential responsibility is upon the Investigating Agency to collect evidence in the context of allegations in a First Information Report. The Court would not like to disable the Investigating Agency from conducting the investigationin a free and fair manner. It is a matter of common observation that an accused protected under the interim anticipatory bail order of the Court may not like to be very cooperative and forthcoming even when he joins investigation which the present applicant had also done in this case. The mere fact, thus, that he joined investigation Criminal Misc. No. M-18594 of 2008 -5- **** for two days is not sufficient to deny to the Investigating Agency the opportunity to further investigate particularly when it is the grievance of the State counsel that applicant did not cooperate even when he joined investigation by the police. In the light of the fore-going discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present anticipatory bail plea is devoid of merit. It shall stand dismissed. August 25, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No Criminal Misc. No. M-18594 of 2008 -6- ****