NEW DELHI, Jan 30, Reuter: The Supreme Court yesterday issued notice to Mr. Bhajan Lal Union Minister of Environment and Forests, on a special leave petition filed by the State of Haryana against the High Court’s judgment quashing the FIR alleging misuse of power and acquisition disproportionate to his known sources of income while in power.

The court has refused to grant stay and made the notices reusable on February 22 when it will finally dispose of the matter.

The petition was heard by Mr. Justice B.C. Ray and Mr. Justice S.R. Pandian who issued notices to Mr. Devi Lal and Mr. Dharam Pal, the complainants. Counsel for the State contended that the High Court should not have interfered in the matter under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and quashed the FIR when the matter was still under investigation.

Counsel submitted that Mr, Bha an Lal had enough safeguards. Even after investigation, sanction was required for prosecution. The police found the facts in the FIR sufficient to arouse suspicion and establish a prime facie case and registered the case under Sections 161 and 165 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The High Court had clearly given a finding that there was no mala fides on the part of respondent No 2, Mr. Devi Lal who had not shown any extraordinary interest in the matter.

The FIR was lodged by Mr Dharam Pal, who was defeated by Mrs, Jasma Devi, wife of Mr. Bhajan Lal, in the assembly elections from the Adampur constituency in 1987, which the High Court held was the cause for filing the complaint.

The complaint had given 20 instances of assets and properties worth crores of rupees allegedly acquired by Mr. Bhajan Lal misusing his official position after becoming a Minister and subsequently Chief Minister. The complainant had also alleged that before 1965 Mr. Bhajan Lal had no known source of income and was a man of ordinary means, That the properties and jewelries worth crores of rupees amassed by him in the name of his relatives and family members were benami holdings and were not accounted for in income taxes or wealth tax returns.

Article extracted from this publication >>  February 3, 1989