Manesar land deal:No illegality committed by trial court, says HC on summoning of 5, including former IAS officer, as additional accused
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has said that the special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court, Panchkula, did not commit an 'illegality' while summoning five officers, including former IAS Rajeev Arora, as additional accused in the controversial Manesar land deal.
'Illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned special court in summoning the petitioners. The challenge to the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be rejected. Consequently, all the petitions stand dismissed,' the bench said.
In December 2020, while framing charges against former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and 32 others, the trial court had summoned Arora and four other officers as additional accused, who had not been indicted in the CBI chargesheet. The trial was stayed by high court on December 14, 2020. The May 15, detailed judgment of which has been released now, paves the way for the commencement of the trial.
The high court bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul rejected the argument of the petitioners that they had been cited as prosecution witnesses and no new material had emerged subsequent to the filing of the chargesheet that would warrant their summoning as accused.
'…the court is only required to ascertain from the material on record whether a prima facie case is made out. The court is not expected to evaluate the probative value or conclusiveness of the material. If, upon consideration of the record, the court discerns the involvement of any person in the commission of the offence who has not been arrayed as an accused, it is well within its powers to summon such person to stand trial,' the bench added.
In this judgment, the court has dealt with the issue of summoning officers as accused.
The judgment on the petitions from builders and some private persons challenging framing of charges against them is still awaited. Hooda himself had not challenged the trial court order.
Those summoned as additional accused by the trial court in December included former Haryana home secretary Rajeev Arora, who served as the managing director of HSIIDC between 2005 and 2012; HSIIDC former chief town planner Surjit Singh; former chief town planner of the town and country planning department Dhare Singh; the then deputy superintendent, town and country planning, Kulwant Singh Lamba; and the then director, industries DR Dhingra.
The high court rejected the argument of the petitioners that prosecution sanction is required in the case of retired public servants also in view of the amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act. The amendment requiring prosecution sanction in the case of retired public servants came into effect in July 2018, while cognisance of the case by the trial court was taken in March 2018, prior to the amendment. 'Thus, the amendment requiring sanction for retired public servants does not retrospectively apply to the present case. Consequently, no sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is required in the case of the petitioners (other than petitioner Rajeev Arora),' the bench observed adding that even in the case of Arora, court did not direct the authorities for granting prosecution sanction but only said that material available in his case be put up before the competent authority. Arora, at the time of the summoning order, was working while other accused persons had retired.
The court further said that the petitioners held key positions in the HSIIDC and the department of industries at the relevant point in time. The special court took into consideration various materials forming part of the chargesheet, which prima facie indicated 'their complicity', it said.
To the argument that the court could have ordered further investigation, the high court said there is no legal requirement that the special court must invariably direct further investigation upon disagreeing with the police report. 'On the contrary, the law empowers the court to directly summon persons found prima facie involved based on the material placed before it,' it added.
'It is impermissible for the trial court, at this preliminary juncture, to embark upon a detailed evaluation of the defence put forth by the accused, nor is it appropriate for the court to delve into or critically assess the probative value or merits of the case of the prosecution. Engaging in such an exercise would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is legally impermissible and contrary to the settled position of law,' the bench underlined.
The case
The controversy dates back to 2004. The Haryana government issued a notification to acquire 912 acres of land under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on August 27, 2004, in Manesar, Lakhnaula and Naurangpur villages. Worried that this would reduce the value of their land, owners sold it at throwaway rates, resulting in a wrongful loss of ₹1,500 crore, as per the CBI probe.
On August 24, 2007, the then director industries passed another order, releasing the land, in violation of government policy, in favour of the people who had bought the land, instead of the original landowners, CBI had alleged in its chargesheet. The Central agency had started a probe in September 2015, and in 2018, it filed a chargesheet running into 80,000 pages against 34 people, including Hooda. The charges were framed against 33, including Hooda, in December 2020 and these five officers were summoned as additional accused, an order challenged in high court, the same month.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Plea in HC against Rayagada collector's 2-month entry ban against Patkar, 24 others
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday began hearing a petition challenging an order issued by the Rayagada collector on June 4, which prohibits activist Medha Patkar and 24 others from entering or staying in the district for two months. The ban was imposed ahead of a public meeting scheduled for June 5 at Hatpada field in Sunger under Kashipur block, where Patkar and other activists were expected to protest against proposed bauxite mining in the Sijimali hills. Citing law and order concerns, collector Parul Patwari acted on a report from the SP stating that the presence of the group might disturb public peace and hinder administrative functioning. The matter reached the HC through a petition filed by Dr Randall Sequeira, a Bhawanipatna-based medical practitioner who was among those barred. Sequeira contended that the order severely hampers his ability to provide essential medical services to tribal communities in Rayagada and Kalahandi, where he has been offering free healthcare for years. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Afraaz Suhail argued that the prohibition was arbitrary, disproportionate and violated constitutional rights. He highlighted that the planned protest was a daylong event, and imposing a two-month district-wide ban not only lacks justification but reflects "non-application of mind" by authorities. Taking note of it, Justice S K Panigrahi sought responses from the Rayagada collector and SP. Additional govt advocate Debashish Nayak was directed to obtain necessary instructions. The matter has been posted for further hearing on Tuesday. The petition asserts that equating peaceful protest in a scheduled area with a threat to public peace is flawed reasoning. It alleges that the administration's approach overlooks the nuanced balance between environmental concerns, indigenous rights and development policies. Sequeira maintained he has no links to any protest and fears the order unjustly tarnishes his record while depriving tribals of crucial healthcare services.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
ONGC employee loses 1.3 crore to cyberfraud
Ahmedabad: An ONGC employee lost Rs 1.36 crore to cyberfraud after being threatened with false legal action by callers posing as officials from central agencies. A case has been registered, and an investigation is underway. The victim, a senior officer at ONGC's Chandkheda office, received a phone call on May 31, claiming her mobile number would be deactivated within two hours. When she called back, the person introduced himself as an official from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Soon after, she received a video call on WhatsApp from a person dressed in a police uniform claiming to be from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) office in Mumbai. The caller said Rs 2 crore in black money was traced to a Canara Bank account linked to her Aadhaar card and that an arrest warrant was issued. In panic, the woman followed their instructions. Over WhatsApp, she shared her personal bank details and submitted written applications as demanded. In the following days, different individuals contacted her, posing as CBI officers, a bank manager and even a judge. They said her funds needed verification and asked her to transfer amounts via real-time gross settlement (RTGS). Between June 2 and 6, she transferred Rs 1.36 crore from her and her mother's accounts to five different accounts in IndusInd Bank, Yes Bank and Bank of Maharashtra. When asked to arrange an additional Rs 50 lakh as security, she realised something was wrong and contacted a relative, who helped her report the fraud through the cyber helpline. The accused impersonated officers from TRAI, CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. Police have begun an investigation based on the FIR and supporting documents like bank statements, call records and WhatsApp chats. Cybercrime police registered an offence of cheating, breach of trust and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections and the Information Technology Act against unknown persons.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Only urgent cases allowed during civil court vacations: HC
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand high court's (HC) senior judge Manoj Tiwari , presiding over a single-judge bench, rejected a petition seeking to request the lower court to hear an appeal during the summer vacation. The case originated when Nitin Arora filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction and a mandatory injunction. On June 5, with the Dehradun civil courts closed for summer holidays, he filed an appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, along with an application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil). The district judge declined the request, citing a lack of urgency to justify a vacation hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the HC. Rule 13 stipulates that courts shall not hear cases on gazetted holidays unless both parties consent, except for urgent matters that require immediate attention. In the districts of Dehradun, Haridwar, Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar, one civil judge (junior division) and one civil judge (senior division) remain available on rotation throughout the vacation period. In other districts, a designated official is appointed to handle urgent cases. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cervecería Nacional CFD: Calcula cuánto podrías ganar invirtiendo solo $100 Empieza a invertir Undo The HC emphasised that while the proviso to rule 13 allows civil courts to consider urgent matters during holidays, it does not confer an automatic right for litigants. The determination of urgency rests with the civil court's discretion. In its June 19 order, the court upheld the previous ruling by the district and sessions court, Dehradun, and concluded that the district judge had acted within their authority when finding insufficient urgency for a vacation hearing. The court found no grounds to interfere with that decision and dismissed the petition accordingly.
