Minister Tota Singh likely to stay — at least for now

Maintaining that he has not been convicted for a heinous crime,Singh said: “The charges are just of misuse of vehicles of the PSEB,which I never used for myself or my family. We will challenge this conviction in the higher court. The cars were used by Board’s officials to visit its regional centre in Moga and the Adarsh schools opened by the PSEB in the region. The Board officials had recorded their evidence in the court,stating that the vehicles were used by them on their official tours.”

“The court has absolved me from the main charges of corruption or amassing property beyond known sources of income,which is bigger crime that misuse of official cars. I have a clean image and enjoy the reputation of being an honest minister,” he added.

Singh’s tenure as education minister in the Parkash Singh Badal government of 1996 was a highly controversial one with charges of corruption and bribery taken in lieu of jobs flying thick. The charges,however,are yet to be proved.

Meanwhile,the party is said to be waiting for Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal to help defuse the situation. Singh’s conviction has come as a major embarrassment for the SAD(B) government,which is still to recover from Bibi Jagir Kaur getting convicted in her daughter’s forceful abortion,abduction and murder case.

A Mohali court conviction against all odds

From the investigating officer,witnesses,to the public prosecutor,all,it seems,did their best to protect Agriculture Minister Tota Singh from getting convicted on charges of disproportionate assets. While the investigating officer did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the corruption case,witnesses not only retracted from their statements but also fabricated documents. To top it all,the public prosecutor always sought an adjournment to avoid an embarrassing situation every time a witness was confronted by the court.

The Mohali Court,however,sentenced Tota Singh to one year rigorous imprisonment on charges of misuse of official car and the machinery of the Punjab School Education Board (PSEB).

The 75-page detailed judgment by the Court of Rajinder Aggarwal,Special Judge,Mohali also reveals the unholy part played by the various stakeholders,during the trial,to “hush up” the case.

The court has issued notices to three witnesses asking them to explain as to why perjury proceedings should not be initiated against them.

The trio under the court scanner are Veena Dada,the then OSD to the PSEB chairman and drivers Shavinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh.

While issuing perjury notices,the court has also taken note that the joint effort to save Tota Singh was made when the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) was in power.

“The court can take notice of the fact that when trial of this case took place even at that time there was a government of the Shiromani Akali Dal in Punjab. Though the accused had lost the elections in 2007,yet the fact that he is a very senior leader of the ruling party cannot be ignored. In such like circumstances,it becomes very difficult for the officials of the state government or the Board to make statements against the politicians of high stature. The officials apprehend that they will have to face a lot if they depose against their political bosses. There are chances of witnesses being pressurised or terrified or having been allured to make false statements in favour of the accused. It seems that even the public prosecutor who conducted this case could not remain immune from the political pressure. He did not examine witnesses Shavinder Singh,Gurdeep Singh and Veena Dada in a proper manner,rather,it appears that all of them including the public prosecutor wanted to hush up the matter,” reads the judgment.

‘Investigating officer either too naive or had malafide intentions’

The investigating officer Surinder Pal Singh,who was also the the investigating officer in the disproportionate assets against Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal,in which the chief minister and his family were acquitted,is already facing perjury charges. He was also the investigating officer in the controversial disproportionate assets case registered by the Vigilance Bureau against former Punjab Director General of Police (DGP) S S Virk. In that instance,the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Surinder Pal Singh was disbanded by the High Court on January 17,2008 after it had come to light that his wife had received two plots in a society that Virk was accused of constructing illegally and selling.

In the present case,Surinder Pal Singh argued that he was merely a “supervising officer”. Rubbishing this,the Mohali Court has passed strictures against the senior IPS officer.

“The case was registered on the basis of source report prepared by Surinder Pal Singh,the then Superintendent of Police,Vigilance Bureau,Punjab. He got the case investigated from DSP Gurmukh Singh,DSP Baljit Singh and DSP Ramanjit Singh and all of them conducted investigation under his supervision. Putting the onus on other DSPs,Surinder Pal Singh took the ground that the case had been investigated by other investigating officers and he has merely supervised the investigation. The statement of the investigating officer clearly reflects that his approach was totally erroneous and illegal. He has not conducted fair investigation into the case. The investigating officer (s) intentionally avoided collecting evidence regarding income of the accused as they wanted to implicate him in the case relating to possessing of disproportionate assets. It is difficult to comprehend as to what type of monitoring was done by Surinder Pal Singh who was senior IPS officer. Either he is too naïve or he has conducted tainted investigation with malafide intention” reads the order.

In a significant observation,the court also ruled that: “no doubt other properties had been acquired by the members of Tota Singh’s family during the check period”. The investigating agency,however,did nothing to probe the source of income of Tota Singh’s family members. Even the salary slip of Tota Singh,as education minister,was not produced by the investigating officer.

Coming down heavily on the investigating agency,the Court has held: “the facts of this case clearly prove that this case has not been investigated properly. The properties acquired by the other members of the family of the accused have been included in his assets/expenditure without any basis. It is made out that the investigating agency did not make any effort to collect evidence regarding income of the accused. The investigating officer did not try to get any information regarding agricultural land owned by the accused and other members of his family. The investigating agency was totally biased and had conducted tainted investigation without collecting any evidence and miserably failed to produce cogent evidence”. Citing the present case as a “classical example of unfair and tainted investigation”,the Court has admonished the investigating agency.

‘Public prosecutor could not
remain immune to political pressure’

Consider this: The public prosecutor in the case did not even press for declaring a witness hostile. Instead he sought adjournments each time the court confronted a material witness,Veena Dada.

Retracting from her initial statement to the police,Veena had claimed that there was a written order by the chairman to accompany Tota Singh as education minister on his visits. The statement was made to protect Tota Singh from the charge of misusing official PSEB car for personal use.

“The public prosecutor did not dare request the court for declaring her hostile. It is quite surprising that during her examination she initially said that there was oral order,to accompany the Education Minister,and later written order by the Chairman of the Board was passed. The said document was not relied upon by the prosecution but still the public prosecutor got her further examination deferred and on the next date the document was produced by her. The said document has been produced to help the accused. The document was undated and bore no endorsement number. It is absolutely clear that the said office order has been fabricated in order to help the accused. The said document has been brought on record in connivance with the public prosecutor. Further examination conducted after the said witnesses were declared hostile was merely an eye wash,” reads the judgment.

Passing strictures against the public prosecutor,the court has held: “It seems that even the public prosecutor who conducted this case could not remain immune from the political pressure. He did not examine witnesses Shavinder Singh. Gurdeep Singh and Veena Dada in proper manner,rather,it appears that all of them including the public prosecutor wanted to hush up the matter”.