Summons were issued by the Special Judge, Ropar, Punjab on 01.12.2003.
235 of 2008.
When both the petitions came up for hearing before this Court on 12.12.2003, the Special Leave Petition as well as the Transfer Petition were withdrawn by the Accused Petitioners.
They are 1.
The above mentioned details reveal the mala fides behind the trial of the 1st respondent and other accused.
P.C. Mr. Harish Salve, senior companynsel appearing for one of the Respondents by taking us through the same materials demonstrated that there is numberbasis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioners.
PW 43 Mr. Amandeep Singh Brar, Executive Engineer, PWD 2.
relating to FIR No.
The special Court after finding that in case other witnesses turned hostile then Investigating Officer is to prove their statement, therefore, it will be appropriate if the Investigating Officer is examined after examination of the remaining material witnesses.
P.C. along with various other applications filed by the Accused with regard to directing the prosecution to clear their stand on the statements of the witnesses and application for termination of further proceedings and the challan in view of the alleged infirmity in the proposed charges to be framed against the accused.
45232 M/07.
Amrinder Singh was also a member of the same party along with Respondent No.
The first respondent had appeared on several dates including 13.03.2007 and 04.07.2007 when charge sheet and amended charge sheet was served upon him.
Thereafter, he had been seeking exemption from personal appearance by making appropriate application.
PW 35 Mr. Rajinder Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer, Irrigation, Bhatinda and 3.
Against the said order, the State of Punjab appealed before the High Court of Punjab Haryana in Crl.
P.C. are never signed by the witnesses and had categorically stated that on 1st, 2nd and 03rd November, 2003 they did number go to any place for making any assessment.
It was pointed out that initially Capt.
The petitioner had subsequently joined the Congress.
Various officials either working in the Vigilance Bureau or in various other Government Departments were pressurized and cited in the list of witnesses, and a wholly baseless challan was presented.
By this time, on the issue of law relating to sanction for prosecution in such cases, several Special Leave Petitions were filed before this Court by various Politicians across the companyntry in separate matters relating to the jurisdiction of Special Courts dealing with such allegations of companyruption, the companynizance and trial of such offences relating to companyruption and other issues as to the requirement of sanction for prosecution.
The allegations against the accused were primarily that of companyruption and of amassing assets which were disproportionate to their income.
To support this case, one of the primary documents being relied on by the prosecution was a report prepared by the Income Tax Department as regards the income assets and other financial details of the accused.
The accused themselves had stopped bothering to even appear before the Special Court.
The statement of official witnesses under Section 161 Cr.
If such Investigating Officer was to be examined at this early stage, then there would be numberody left to prove the statements of prosecution witnesses who were resiling.
179 of 2008.
15 dated 24.06.2003 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 1 and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered at the Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad, Mohali on the companyplaint of one Mr. Balwant Singh son of Mr. Sukhdev Singh.
The said letter was published in the Press and wide publicity was given for the purpose of electoral gain in February, 2002.
In para 12, details were furnished about the number of prosecution witnesses, their status and their statements.
The entire matter is number under the judicial scrutiny before the trial Court.
PW 46 Mr. Surender Singh, Cable Operator.
As a matter of fact, the reply filed by the prosecution requested the Court to adjourn these applications and keep them sine die.
1 who subsequently left the Shiromani Akali Dal on being denied to companytest the Assembly Election in 1997.
Since, facts are companymon in both the transfer petitions, we propose to dispose of the same by this companymon judgment.
The above said Transfer Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file any other Transfer Petition in future and the same will be companysidered on its own merits as pleaded in that petition.
Those witnesses filed separate affidavit in the High companyrt stating that on 1st, , 2nd , 3rd November 2003, when the alleged assessment said to be taken place, they were doing their official work at their respective offices.
While strangely such an application was made after the Special Public Prosecutor had companycluded his arguments, it was further made evident that the Prosecution was under the pressure of, inter alia, Accused No.1 who was number the Chief Minister of Punjab to seek a medium through which the case of the prosecution against the Accused companyld be weakened.
Thereafter, Accused No.1 assumed power and position as the Chief Minister of Punjab the entire criminal trial took a companypletely different turn.
By this time, Accused No.1 Mr. Prakash Singh Badal had formally occupied the chair of Chief Minister of Punjab and was also holding the Portfolio of the Department of Home.
Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal appeared on most of the dates of hearing in the trial Court barring a few where he was granted exemption from personal appearance by the trial Court.
Hence, the Accused who were also companytesting election sought time before the learned Special Judge and requested that the trial be taken up after the election is over and the result is announced.
There was number even a word of objection or opposition to the said application.
Respondent Nos.
The public prosecutor Mr. Pardeep Mehta, who had been protecting the interest of the Accused was number made in charge of the case, obviously by the Government headed by Accused No.1.
As regards the allegation of number appearance of the accused in the Court, Smt.
For companyvenience, reference to parties will be as arrayed in Transfer Petition No.
The companyduct of the Prosecution and the manner in which the Accused has struck at the heart of it and made it defenceless can be seen from the fact that in the companyrse of such trial, it is companymon practice for the prosecution to require examination of the investigating officer at the end of evidence so that such investigating officer may prove the statement of the other witnesses even if they were to have resiled from the same in the companyrse of examination.
It was pointed out that in the same month i.e. in 2002, the Congress party came to power in Punjab and the petitioner was appointed as the Chief Minister and retained with himself the portfolio of Home and Vigilance.
2007 1 SCC 1 and the said special leave petitions filed by the accused came to be dismissed by this Court.
It is borne out from the record that the petitioner, after assuming the office of Chief Minister in February 2002, had embarked upon a witch hunt against the 1st respondent and his family members.
Likewise, the other witnesses PWs 1 to 7, 15, 23, 24, 27, 28, 43, 44 and 53 have denied their role in assessing the properties on 1st , 2nd and 3rd November, 2003 i.e. the date of the assessment alleged by the prosecution.
It was highlighted that those witnesses i.e. PWs 9 to 14, 35 36 had number even seen Balasar Farm House, where their services were alleged to have been utilized.
Thus Accused No.1 who was holding charge of the Home Ministry portfolio was in a position to actually decide as to who should be his prosecutor.
On the same day 17.01.2008/18.01.2008 when the companyplainant resiled, PW 53 Mr. Amarjit Singh, SP Vigilance Bureau and PW 55 Mr. Jagdish Singh Khaloan, SP, Ferozepur who were examined on the same date also turned hostile.
It was further pointed out that on account of the persistence of the petitioner with his defamatory allegations, the respondent herein also filed a criminal companyplaint for defamation against the petitioner.
In the same companynter affidavit the evidence given by prosecution witnesses were catalogued and asserted that those witnesses have number supported the case of the prosecution and also emphasized the manner in which the prosecution set up the false witnesses, pressurized and threatened them.
The entire batch of matters and all issues on law were decided by this Court by a detailed judgment dated 06.12.2006 in the matter of Prakash Singh Badal and Ors vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,
Along with these proceedings, they also filed a Transfer Petition before this Court being T.P. Crl.
To this end, he retained to himself the portfolios of Home and Vigilance.
Further it may be important to numbere that by number, Accused No.1 was number in charge of Home Department and more particularly, the Vigilance Department.
However, in the present case, despite the fact that some prosecution witnesses had already started resiling from their statements, the prosecution deliberately made an application for examining the investigating officer Mr. Surinder Pal Singh, prematurely and at the beginning of such proceedings.
Again when the matter came up for hearing on 06.03.2007, neither of the accused was present in the Court in spite of the express directions of the Special Court.
Application No.
Since then, the petitioner held Mr. Prakash Singh Badal who was the president of the Shiromani Akali Dal at that time, to be responsible for his fate.
It is claimed that FIR dated 24.06.2003 is almost a verbatim companyy of the letter dated 04.09.2001 written by the petitioner.
Surinder Kaur Badal, wife of Mr. Prakash Singh Badal was granted permanent exemption from personal appearance by the trial Court, way back on 21.02.2004 when the petitioner Mr. Amarinder Singh himself was heading the Government.
When the matter once again came up for hearing on 07.03.2007, the Court was companystrained to numbere that numberproper final reply had been filed by the Prosecution with regard to the applications filed by accused inter alia for discontinuation termination.
The manner in which the public prosecutor Mr. Pardeep Mehta was companyering up for the accused and helping them is made further clear when the State of Punjab actually appealed the above order of the Special Court Trial Court dated 20.08.2007 dismissing the above application which was so done by challenging the order before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh vide Criminal Misc.
A criminal companyplaint for defamation was filed by Mr. Badals son Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal, 2nd Respondent herein against the petitioner.
Viewed in this companytext, the deposition of the prosecution witnesses before the Trial Court is clearly truthful, as they have categorically exposed the manner in which they were cited as false witnesses and subjected to threat and companyrcion at the instance of the petitioner herein.
They had gone only in July, 2003 and submitted their reports.
It is the claim of the learned senior companynsel appearing for the petitioners that companytrary to all known practice of a companyduct of a trial in which the prosecution examines the Investigating Officer at the end of the prosecution evidence so that the statements of hostile witnesses may be proved, in the cases on hand the public prosecutor, Mr. Pardeep Mehta prematurely filed an application for examining the Investigating Officer, Mr. Surinder Pal Singh.
By order dated 14.11.2007, the High Court directed the Special Court to companysider afresh any such application that may be filed by the public prosecutor in the near future.
They are 1.
As far as the applications were companycerned, a vague and perfunctory reply was filed by Mr. Pardeep Mehta, the Public Prosecutor, which in fact did number even deal with the companytentions set out in the said application.
9410 of 2004 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
By pointing out the same, learned senior companynsel for the petitioners companytended that prosecution was so keen that the Investigating Officer be examined out of turn.
PW 52 Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Inspector General of Police, Railways.
Being aggrieved by this judgment, the accused filed Special Leave Petition being SLP Civil No.
However, this application was dismissed by the Special Court Trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2007.
This FIR was filed for offences companymitted by Mr. Prakash Singh Badal Accused No.1 , Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal Accused No.2 and other family members for alleged acts of companyruption companymitted during the previous tenure of Accused No.1 as Chief Minister of the State of Punjab for the period 1997 2002, for companylecting black money, owning possessing Nammi Benami movable and immovable properties both in India and abroad.
In both the said criminal companyplaints, the petitioner had been the same and served with numberice of accusation by the Trial companyrt to face the trial.
On 15.02.2007, an application was moved by one of the Accused regarding crucial witnesses and on 21.02.2007 another application was filed by the accused for discontinuation termination of further proceedings.
He asserted that he had signed these papers for purchase of a vehicle.
Even thereafter, three more witnesses were examined on 26.11.2007 27.11.2007 and they too turned hostile.
15 and 11th Respondent is the State of Punjab.
It is seen that the said application filed by the public prosecutor was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 20.08.2007.
Despite all the damage that companyld have done through the prosecution after the framing of the charge, the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justices issued Notification No.21/17/2000 3/JUDL 1 /1418 dated 10.05.2007/11.05.2007 canceling the appointments of all existing special public prosecutors in the case.
Brief facts, as stated in the Transfer Petition No.
Application and passed an order to the effect that in the light of any changed circumstances and or subsequent events, the public prosecutor deems it appropriate to seek permission of the learned Special Judge to examine the Investigating Officer before the remaining witnesses are examined, he may move another application to this effect and if such an application is moved, the learned Special Judge was directed to companysider and dispose of the same in accordance with law by ignoring the previous order dated 20.08.2007.
M s Jeet Mohinder Singh, Sukhpal Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Mangat Ram Bansal who are all members of Legislative Assembly are the petitioners in Transfer Petition No.
PW 34 Mr. Rajinder Singh Garewal, Deputy Director, Horticulture 2.
1 to 10 are the accused in the case relating to FIR No.
It is relevant to point out that the companyplainant himself, namely, Mr. Balwant Singh who was examined as PW 56 resiled stating that the affidavit supporting his private companyplaint was number filed by him.
235 of 2008.
The High Court heard the said Writ Petition and after companysidering all the legal issues raised by the accused, rejected the same by a detailed judgment dated 02.09.2004 directing the Special Judge to companyclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any case number later than a year from the pronouncement of the said judgment.
Amarinder Singh is the petitioner in Transfer Petition No.
All the alleged witnesses in the case were put up by the present petitioner, as the then Chief Minister of the State, in order to politically discredit the 1st respondent and to create a defence for himself in respect of both civil and criminal proceedings for defamation instituted by the 1st respondent against the petitioner herein.
It was further pointed out that in September, 2001 in the Assembly elections in Punjab, the petitioner wrote a letter to Mr. Badal alleging that the latter had amassed properties in India and Abroad which were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Despite this document being absolutely necessary to prove the case of the prosecution, on 23.02.2007 the Investigating Officer, Mr. Surinder Pal Singh, filed an affidavit before the Special Court trial Court stating that the report prepared by the Income Tax Department ought number to be companysidered by the Special Court at the stage of framing of charge.
It is further seen that on 04.01.2008 two more witnesses were examined who also turned hostile.
These witnesses admitted the fact that they assessed those properties in July, 2003, but their report did number find approval of the Vigilance Bureau.
The same hurdle is there for other witnesses both on the prosecution as well as defence.
Despite a companyplete lack of assistance and interest on the part of the prosecution, the Special Judge, Ropar framed charges against the Accused including Mr. Prakash Singh Badal Chief Minister of Punjab , Mr. Shukhbir Singh Badal Son of the Chief Minister and other members of the family and known associates under Sections 13 1 a , 13 2 , 13 1 e , 8,9 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
When the prosecution further companytinued on 20.08.2007, three more prosecution witnesses were examined and they all resiled from the statements made before them.
19640 of 2004 before this Court.
Mr. Prakash Singh Badal and Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal having withdrawn the above Special Leave Petition and Transfer Petition, moved an application on 16.01.2004 before the Special Judge, Ropar raising question relating to the companypetence and jurisdiction of the Special Court.
He had been granted exemption on specific dates of hearing by the trial Court after due application of mind.
Ironically the said Notification was said to be passed with immediate effect in public interest.
Against the summons, Mr. Prakash Singh Badal and Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP Crl.
Aggrieved by that order, on 30.06.2004, the accused filed CWP No.
It was companytended that same was the position in respect of charge relating to bribery, flow of illegal wealth and black money of the accused persons.
Various events set out in para 7 of the affidavit establish that the entire prosecution is vitiated by mala fide.
PW 44 Mr. Sukdhip Singh Dhindsa, Executive Engineer, PWD and 3.
When the matter came up for hearing on 01.03.2007 and the Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Amar Preet Singh Deol had closed his arguments, an application was moved by the Public Prosecutor Mr. Pardeep Mehta under Section 173 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking permission to companyduct further investigation.
Sathasivam, J. These two transfer petitions have been preferred under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking transfer of the case titled as State of Punjab vs. Prakash Singh Badal and Ors.
By saying so, the special Court disposed of the application filed by the public prosecutor.
Elections were to take place in the month of February, 2007 in the State of Punjab.
PW 36 Mr. Vijay Kumar, Junior Engineer, Drainage.
15 dated 24.06.2003 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7,8,9,10, 13 1 and 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Ropar to any other suitable Court of companypetent jurisdiction in New Delhi.
In para 13, details have been furnished about various documents placed before the trial Court.
Ultimately, the High Court disposed of Crl.
In the companynter affidavit filed before us the first respondent has highlighted various other proceedings between the respondents and the petitioner.
As a natural outcome of this dismissal, the trial before the Special Court, which had been suspended all this while was to proceed.
307 of 2003 challenging, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, Ropar.
The petitioner has filed the present petition to somehow scuttle the trial.
The materials placed show that in the meantime before the Special Court three more witnesses were examined and they also turned hostile.
5252 of 2003.
