RAM KISHAN FAUJI vs STATE OF HARYANA . Supreme Court, 21-03-2017
| Judge | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR |
| Parties | RAM KISHAN FAUJISTATE OF HARYANA . |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-004288-004288 / 2017 |
| Date | 21 March 2017 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4288 OF 2017
(arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15362 of 2016)
Ram Kishan Fauji ... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana in
exercise of power under Section 8(1) of the Haryana
Lokayukta Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the Act”) made a reference
to the Lokayukta, Haryana to enquire into the allegations,
namely, (i) whether the allegations of bribery levelled in the
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK GUGLANI
Date: 2018.04.07
12:57:26 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
alleged Compact Disc (CD) are correct, (ii) whether Change
of Land Use (CLU)/Licence was granted in pursuance of
these allegations, and (iii) whether by such act, any illegality
was committed. The said reference was registered as
Complaint No. 773 of 2013 in the office of the Lokayukta,
Haryana.
3. Acting on the reference made by the Chief Secretary,
the office of the Lokayukta issued a public notice requesting
the public in general to send any such material including
Video Compact Disc (VCD) connected with the subject in
issue. Apart from the public notice, communications were
sent to various departments of the Government, television
channels and newspapers for furnishing all materials to find
out the allegations of corruption against the persons who
have been named in the complaint.
4. As the facts would unfold, the Lokayukta, Haryana,
issued notice to the appellant in exercise of power under
Section 14 of the Act to offer his explanation. In pursuance
of the said communication, the appellant filed a reply and
the Lokayukta granted him time to place on record his
3
evidence in the form of an affidavit. When the matter stood
thus, on 16.01.2014, two persons allegedly conducted a
sting operation and filed their affidavits before the
Lokayukta. The appellant, in the meantime, got the CD
examined from M/s Truth Labs, Bangalore and also got the
forensic examination of the audio and a report was
submitted on 20.01.2014 opining, as averred, that the
audio and video recording in the earlier CD was not
continuous and the recording did not appear to be
authentic. Be that as it may, on weighing the material
brought on record, the Lokayukta thought it appropriate to
recommend for registration of FIR for offences punishable
under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for short, “the 1988 Act”) and investigation by a
senior competent officer of impeccable integrity.
5. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the
appellant had preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 4554/2014
(O&M) praying for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing of the impugned orders dated 20.01.2014 and
11.02.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby it had
To continue reading
Request your trial