M.M.AGGARWAL, J. - (1.) AGAINST order dated 25.1.2002 of Special Judge, Sangrur, above-said three petitions had been filed by persons against whom charges were directed to be framed by the Special Judge Sangrur for offence under Sections 409/120-B IPC and 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) CRIMINAL Revision bearing No. 2372 of 2002 was filed by Surinder Singh Aneja who was Manager Construction and other Criminal Revision bearing No. 1856 of 2002 by Ranjit Singh who was S.O. of the Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited and third petition bearing No. 1299 of 2002 was filed by Parkash Chand Goyal who was a Government Contractor. The facts of the case are that work for construction of Tourist Complex at Nidampur was allotted to Parkash Chand Goyal, Government Contractor on 27.11.1989. Work was to be completed within nine months but was completed actually in 1991. A certificate in this respect was issued by the Executive Engineer, Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh on 9.4.1991 but since the payments of the work were not being made and there was arbitration clause, the contractor sought for the arbitration. Shri V.P. Duggal, Chief Engineer (Retd.) PWD, Punjab, who was appointed Arbitrator, had given his award on 9.8.1995 and the matter was decided in favour of the Contractor. This award was challenged by the Punjab Tourism Development Corporation by filing objections. These objections were dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur on 2.6.1997. Appeal was filed which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 4.9.1998. A revision filed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur was dismissed by the High Court on 12.7.2000. Even an SLP filed in the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
(3.) MEANWHILE , case FIR No. 123 dated 20.9.1994 under Sections 409/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act had been registered at Police Station North U.T. Chandigarh. After investigation, challan against the petitioners were presented. Contractor had applied for discharge and dropping of the proceedings. His prayer was dismissed vide order dated 25.1.2002 and then charges were framed against all the accused (now petitioners).;