B.R.BAJAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by B.R. Bajaj, petitioner, against the Union of India and others, respondents, with a prayer for the quashing of the First Information Report No. 8, dated March 11, 1986, registered against the petitioner and some others at the instance of Superintendent of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment, Chandigarh, for the alleged offences under section 120 -B. read with 418,468, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sections 418, 468, Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE salient features of the petition are those. The petitioner who belongs to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service was, at the time of the filing of the petition, posted 15 Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration. He is a young officer with 16 years service and an excellent record. It is stated that he had been issued letters of appreciation by the Government for his conduct and performance which had been consistently of high order. According to the petitioner, the impugned First Information Report accusing him of various offence is deliberate attempt to malign humiliate and harass' him at the threshold of his career. It is further stated that respondent No. 5 (at whose instance the First Information Report had been registered) could not get possession of a Government house in spite of an allotment order in his favour and the said respondent had, therefore, framed a false, case against the petitioner. Another averment is that M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala whose tender was rejected, happens to be an ex -employee of the C.B.I., and the petitioner believes that a false case has been registered at his instance.

(3.) AT this stage, it is necessary to make a reference to some additional material which, both the parties were permitted to place on the record but the relevance or otherwise of the same was to be considered at the stage of arguments. So far as the petitioner is concerned, by means of an application, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3200 of 1986 a prayer was made for placing on record the affidavit of Mr. K. Banarji, Adviser to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, and President of the Indian Council for Child Welfare. It is averred in the said affidavit dated May 18, 1986 that the deponent, i.e., Mr. K. Banarji is personally aware of certain facts relating to impugned First Information Report, in view of his capacity as ex -officio President of the Council. The deponent further averred as follows: œ3. That the constitution of the said Council provides that the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, would be its ex -officio President, and by virtue of this office, I state that the file of the Indian Council for Child Welfare about the acceptance of Tender for the purpose of running a, Lottery, was sent to me on or after 23 9.1985. then sent for the Vice President of the Council, namely, the petitioner and told him that he should make enquiries about the reliability and suitability of Shri V. Kumar tenderer, in whose favour the recommendation for acceptance of Tender, had been forwarded by the petitioner to me. The necessity for making these enquiries arose, because certain doubts had been raised in my mind by the conduct of the said Shri V. Kumar, since he had tried to influence me by sending recommendations in his favour from different quarters on phone. 4. That thereafter the petitioner, after making the necessary enquiries made a note "on 21.10.1985, whereby he recommended that the contract be given to M/s. Om Prkash and Company, as Shri V. Kumar was found to be not a reliable and suitable party on enquiries made from the Director, Punjab Lotteries. I approved the note of the petitioner on the same date and also directed that the income from the Lottery be used only for the Handicapped Children's Centre.