Crl. Misc. No. M-52752 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-52752 of 2007 Date of Decision : August 24, 2009 Suresh Agnihotri .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. None for respondent no.4. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Suresh Agnihotri has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for handing over the investigation of case FIR No.43 dated 26.03.2007, under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short – the Act), registered at Police Station City, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-9) to some independent agency like CBI. The petitioner was posted as Child Development and Project Officer at Gurdaspur. About a month before his retirement on Crl. Misc. No. M-52752 of 2007 2 superannuation, the aforesaid FIR was registered inter alia on the allegation that the petitioner had taken Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant Surjit Kaur for appointing her as Helper in Anganwari Center and the petitioner was demanding Rs.10,000/- more from the complainant, which she could not pay. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not act as desired by respondent no. 4 (Gurbachan Singh Babehali – Member of Legislative Assembly) and therefore, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that appointment of the complainant was made by the petitioner on 29.08.2005 i.e. more than 1½ years before the lodging of the FIR. It was also contended that the petitioner had served notice dated 22.02.2007 (Annexure P-8) seeking explanation of the complainant Surjit Kaur as to why she applied for maternity leave for third child, which is not permissible and why she applied for leave after expiry of the leave period, and it was a month thereafter that the impugned FIR was lodged. It was also pointed out that both witnesses of alleged payment of Rs,10,000/- by the complainant to the petitioner as illegal gratification are interested witnesses inasmuch as one witness Ravinder Singh is cousin of respondent no.4, whereas other witness Joga Singh belongs to Village Babehali, which is the village of respondent no.4. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that Ravinder Singh is not cousin of respondent no.4, but is a distant agnate of respondent no.4, their great great grandfather being common ancestor. As regards Joga Singh, it was submitted by learned State counsel that Babehali is ancestral village of Joga Singh, but 20 years back, Joga Singh shifted to Crl. Misc. No. M-52752 of 2007 3 Village Dauwal, where he has telephone connection and electricity connection as well and also cultivating 25 acres of land, although Joga Singh is still listed as voter in Village Babehali. Learned State counsel also contended that there are four other witnesses in the case, who have also made statements that they were appointed by the petitioner after taking illegal gratification from them. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that two, out of the four aforesaid witnesses, are also from Village Babehali. It was also contended that respondent no.4, who has been impleaded by name and against whom allegations have been levelled by the petitioner, has refused to accept service of the notice of petition and has not put in appearance and has not controverted the averments made in the petition against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the petitioner simply wants a fair investigation, which may be conducted by any competent officer outside Gurdaspur district. Keeping in view all the circumstances noticed herein above, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the last prayer made by the petitioner is accepted. The petitioner has since retired. Allegations of bribery were made long after the bribe had allegedly been paid. There are also certain other circumstances noticed herein above requiring fair investigation. The prayer of the petitioner that investigation be conducted by some police officer from outside Gurdaspur district is also reasonable and genuine. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of by directing Director General of Police, Punjab to depute some police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above, from outside District Gurdaspur, to conduct investigation in FIR No.43 dated 26.03.2007, under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, registered at Police Station Crl. Misc. No. M-52752 of 2007 4 City, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-9) and to submit investigation report to the competent Court in accordance with law. Meanwhile, proceedings in the challan already submitted shall remain stayed. August 24, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE