Five acquitted MC employees to face music for violating laws

Problems for the five municipal corporation (MC) employees who were acquitted by the additional sessions judge-cum-special judge in a case of violating of laws to give clean chit to a building owner for encroachment have not ended.

Problems for the five municipal corporation (MC) employees who were acquitted by the additional sessions judge-cum-special judge in a case of violating of laws to give clean chit to a building owner for encroachment have not ended.

The district attorney (prosecution) has written to the director, prosecution and litigation, Chandigarh, to file a revision petition of the case in the Punjab and Haryana high court.

The last date of filing revision petition is November 8.

The district attorney has filed a detailed report about the role of the accused, including building inspector Hardeep Singh, MC town planner Shakti Sagar Bhatia, assistant town planner Mohan Lal, draftsmen Nirmal Singh and Mohinder Pal, to the director, prosecution and litigation, Chandigarh.

One of the accused building inspector Gurdeep Singh Bhogal had got benefit of doubt from the court, but the district attorney had written to the director, prosecution and litigation, Chandigarh, to file a review petition in the high court to examine his role.

The court of additional sessions judge-cum-special judge HS Grewal had convicted draftsman Bhant Singh (now retired), building inspector Padam Chand Sharma (now retired) and building owner Mohinder Kumar Mehta (died in 2008) in July 2014. The court had awarded two-year imprisonment to each convict.

This case is a rare example where MC employees were convicted.

One Rajesh Jain of Gulchaman Gali had raised the issue of illegal construction in the area around 14 years ago. Mehta had constructed a commercial building in the area without following the norms and had also encroached upon land. The municipal corporation officers were hand in glove with the building owner had surpassed the norms to benefit the building owner.

The vigilance bureau had taken up the matter in 2005 and had registered a case under sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian penal code and 13 (1) D (while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest) read with section 13 (2) 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against all accused.

All accused except Bhogal and Mehta were arrested then.