Chandigarh, Jul 1 The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday rejected former Punjab minister Sunder Sham Arora's plea for fresh investigation into the 2022 corruption case registered against him by the state vigilance bureau.
While dismissing Arora's petition, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that it cannot be accepted that investigation is biased and vitiated merely because it has been conducted by an officer subordinate to the complainant.
Arora had initially sought the quashing of the FIR registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act in October 2022 and subsequent proceedings.
But his counsel later sought a direction for getting a fresh investigation of the case conducted through an independent agency.
Arora was arrested by the state vigilance bureau for allegedly offering a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to an assistant inspector general-rank officer to settle the ongoing inquiries against him.
The investigation in the case was handed over to a deputy superintendent of police, vigilance bureau. The AIG was the complaint in the matter.
The petitioner's counsel contended that investigation in the case stands vitiated on account of inherent bias of the investigating officer in favour of the complainant.
The former is an officer subordinate to the latter, who holds an overbearing influence and records his annual confidential reports also. The investigation carried out by such an officer is bound to be one sided, lacking in objectivity, the counsel contended.
It is a case of definite bias as the facts have not been impartially looked into. This is the reason whatever complaint was submitted to him, it was accepted as true without carrying out the necessary investigation requiring collection of evidence, the counsel submitted.
The court after examining merits of the found that the petitioner cannot be held entitled to seek a direction for re-investigation of the case.
"The sole premise based upon which the direction has been sought is that the investigation carried out by an officer subordinate to the complainant is bound to be tainted due to inherent bias in favour of his superior/complainant. it cannot be objective or impartial.
"The subordinate officer would not question the veracity of allegations levelled by his superior, and hence his inability to ascertain relevant facts establishing ingredients of the alleged offences," according to the order.
Finding no merit in the argument, the court said it stands settled that invalid investigation is not a ground to order reinvestigation of the case after the cognizance of offence has been taken, unless miscarriage of justice has been established.
On another argument of the petitioner, the court held that it is too far-fetched to be accepted that a subordinate officer would always be biased in investigating a complaint filed by his superior, and would act in breach of his responsibility to be fair and impartial.
"Such a view would be outlandish amounting to drawing a presumption against the professional ethics and duties every officer has to stand by," read the order.
