SURINDER SINGH, J. - (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. Certain facts in regard to the controversy in the matter have been mentioned. These facts are so varied that it is not possible to concise them, and the only course is to reproduce them in extenso as contained in para 3 of the petition: "(i) That in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, there has been set up a Council called the Indian Council for Child Welfare, Chandigarh. The following are the office -bearers of the said Council: (a) The President (Ex -officio), Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh (Mr. K. Banarji); (b) Vice President (Ex -Officio) Finance Secretary, Union Territory (B.R. Bajaj, Petitioner). (c) The Honorary General Secretary, Mrs. S. Roy, Principal, Mehar Chand Mahajan College for women, Sector 34, Chandigarh. (d) The Treasurer, Mrs. Usha Suri, w/o Shri L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate, High Court, Chandigarh. (e) Mrs. K. Kaushik, Organizing Secretary. (ii) That the above said Council is a Society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860 and according to the Constitution of the Society, it is a welfare organization devoted to the upliftment of children. (iii) That on April 23, 1985, the Council sought permission of the Chandigarh Administration to float a lottery in order to raise funds for opening a rehabilitation centre for handicapped children. A copy of the application is attached herewith as Annexure P -2. The permission sought was granted on July 10, 1985. A copy of the letter is appended herewith as Annexure P -3. (It is submitted that while processing the case for the grant of permission, the Petitioner in his capacity as Finance Secretary and the Chief Commissioner are presumed to have dealt with the case in their official capacity as public servants) (iv) That in the month of August, 1985, tenders for a lottery were invited by the Council and the same were opened by a Tender Committee of the Council on 29th August, 1985. (It is noteworthy that the Petitioner is not alleged to be a Member of the Tender -Committee). The Honorary General Secretary is alleged to have sent its recommendations to the Petitioner (in his capacity as ex -officio Vice President) vide note dated August 30, 1985 and in the said note it was recommended that the tender of the second highest bidder (M/s. V. Kumar) for the lottery should be accepted. It is alleged that it was further mentioned in the recommendation that the highest bidder had withdrawn its officer before the Tender -Committee of the Council, when the representative of the highest bidder was explained that the Council will allow only 52 weekly draws whereas the highest bid was offered on the condition that they are allowed to have 4 bumper -draws in addition to 52 weekly draws. A copy of this note is Annexure P -4 to this petitioner. It may be mentioned that the Petitioner is not alleged to be connected in any manner with the process and scrutiny of the tenders. On the contrary the F.I.R. states that the Petitioner was not a member of the Tender Committee. (v) That in his capacity as ex -officio Vice President of the Council, the Petitioner forwarded the file on 23rd September, 1985 to the Chief Commissioner for awarding the contract to the second highest bidder M/s. V. Kumar Lotterywala. (vi) On October 21, 1985, the file of the Council pertaining to acceptance of tenders is alleged to have been sent back by the President of the Council to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to have revised his opinion regarding the recommendation of the Council and on the basis of the reasons given by him in the note of the same day (which is reproduced in the F.I.R.) the name of the fourth highest bidder (Respondent No. 7) instead of the second highest bidder was recommended for the consideration of the President. The third highest bidder was reported to have already withdrawn his offer. The revised recommendation of the Petitioner is alleged to have been approved by the President of the Council. (vii) It is further alleged that on October 31, 1985, the 4th highest bidder (Respondent No. 7) also withdrew his offer and that the Council submitted the file to the petitioner vide its note (copy annexure P4 -A) dated November 1, 1985 that in view of Respondent No. 7 have to withdrawn his offer and Respondent No. 8 already having withdrawn earlier; the tender of respondent No. 9 may be accepted, The Petitioner and the President of the Council are alleged to have accepted the proposal of the Hony. General Secretary made in Annexure P4 -A on November 7, 1985. (viii) It is further alleged that the Council had altered the terms of agreement on the basis of which the lottery was to be operated by Respondent No. 9 and that a recommendation of the Council to this effect dated November 1, 1985 (Annexure P -5) was accepted by the petitioner vide his letter dated Nov. 22, 1985 (Annexure P -6). (ix) It is further alleged that the stipulation of a deposit of Rs. 5 lacs to be deposited in cash in addition to a Bank guarantee as security was diluted by the Council and Respondent No. 9 was allowed to deposit a sum of Rs. One lac in addition to a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lacs. (x) The F.I.R. does not allege a conspiracy between the petitioner and any other member of the Tender Committee of the Council or its General Secretary."
(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.;