The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday gave interim relief to retired IAS officer Karan Bir Singh Sidhu in the irrigation scam case and directed the Punjab Vigilance Bureau to take no coercive action against him to secure his presence till February 8, 2023, the date of next hearing. The bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh also advised Sidhu to come to India.
Sidhu’s counsel, advocate PS Ahluwalia, contended before the high court that no approval/sanction was granted under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even for conducting any vigilance enquiry. The impugned approval/sanction dated September 16, 2022, was for carrying out investigation against the petitioner. As per the status report dated October 31, 2022, filed by the Vigilance Bureau based on the disclosure statement dated December 21, 2017, an enquiry was conducted by the AIG Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1, Mohali, and a report was submitted on November 18, 2019.
According to the report, vigilance enquiry was recommended against the officers/politicians whose names were mentioned in the disclosure report. Based on the recommendations, permission under Section 17-A of the PC Act to register a vigilance enquiry was granted by the government on September 16 this year.
Sidhu’s counsel further submitted that the FIR dated August 17, 2017, was registered at PS Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1, Mohali, under various sections of cheating under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act, against one Gurinder Singh, contractor and others, for causing loss to the state exchequer. Sidhu’s name was not named in the FIR, nor was any role attributed to him, the counsel contended.
Sidhu’s counsel told the court the main accused Gurinder Singh made a confessional statement on December 19, 2017, while in custody to the effect that he had paid bribes in crores to former ministers as well as three serving IAS officers for getting undue benefits. The confessional statement was reflected in the interim report of the investigating officer. During the investigation, the petitioner was neither summoned in any manner in the context of the confessional statement nor was nominated as an accused at any point in time. The petitioner was never issued any summon or warrant or any other communication in connection with any alleged complicity, Sidhu’s counsel argued.
As many as 14 challans were filed before the court by the investigating agency and 32 accused were nominated. The name of the petitioner did not figure in any of the 14 challans, Sidhu’s counsel argued.
The IO made a statement before the Mohali court on August 2, 2019, to the effect that the investigation in the FIR was completed and no further challan was to be presented, Sidhu’s counsel told the high court.
It was further contended by the counsel that the new chief minister directed the Vigilance Bureau to first examine the comments made by the department of irrigation in its detailed report and then resubmit the case. Vigilance Bureau was to come up with new material or evidence, if any, before the request for approval was to be considered. Prior approval was not granted against the petitioner by the government. A lookout circular has been issued against the petitioner, the counsel said.
The counsel added that the words ‘inquiry’, ‘enquiry’ and ‘investigation’ are different having distinct meanings as per the standard operating procedure for processing the cases under Section 17-A of the Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the descriptions of these words cannot be used interchangeably.
The state counsel replied as of now there was no move to arrest the petitioner and others. Correction in the impugned order thereby replacing the word ‘investigation’ with ‘enquiry’ may take some time and till then, even the Vigilance Bureau would not issue any notice to the petitioner and others.
The high court ordered, “Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in order to secure his presence. The petitioner, if so, advised may come to India.”
The court also said that the Vigilance Bureau would also be at liberty to file a detailed reply by the adjourned date.
