HC flags patterns in white-collar graft, dismisses tehsildar’s anticipatory bail plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged the deeply entrenched and layered nature of white-collar corruption while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of a tehsildar accused of seeking Rs 10,000 bribe disguised as “Rs 10 ticket” for registration of land documents. The complainant had alleged that despite the paperwork being in order, a registry clerk conveyed that the seemingly innocuous ticket was in fact a coded demand for Rs 10,000.

“White collar crimes are often layered and executed through a long chain. Such offences cannot be equated to the traditional offences relating to body or property. Crimes of corruption involve multiple beneficiaries, who share the spoils and yet provide a protective shield to the other,” Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj observed.

The observations are significant as they indicate that corruption is not an isolated act but a systemic arrangement and the higher up are also required to be held accountable – a message that resonates with every citizen who has stood in a queue, pushed a file, or paid bribe.

The complainant, in his statement before a judicial magistrate, had alleged that the tehsildar directed affixation of “Rs 10 ticket” to plot-registration documents by the registry clerk, despite agreeing that all paperwork was in order.  He, in turn, conveyed to the complainant that the “so-called ticket of Rs 10 actually meant a demand of Rs 10,000”. The complainant alleged that the officer, when confronted, “corroborated and reiterated the demand and refused to register the sale deed until the amount was handed over to the registry clerk”.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted that the petitioner disowned all misdeeds of his subordinate and feigned complete ignorance of the misconduct and yet claimed to be a competent and upright officer. “Contradictions in best play!” the court observed.

Justice Bhardwaj added silence was “surprisingly” maintained even when complainant reported the demand. “Specific allegations have been levelled expressly against the petitioner and there is no ulterior motive for such complaint. A victim cannot be discredited merely because the accused so desires,” the court added.

Holding that corruption cases frequently involved indirect mechanisms, Justice Bhardwaj added: “Merely because the petitioner was not directly collecting the money himself and had devised a particular mechanism for collection of such amounts before the sale deed could be executed, cannot be the basis at this juncture to completely rule out that he had no role of any nature whatsoever”.

Justice Bhardwaj added the court was of the considered view that the petitioner’s role could not be regarded as free from suspicion. “On the contrary, his proactive involvement is apparent from the conduct exhibited in furtherance of the illegal demands made by the registry clerk. The petitioner cannot therefore claim to be innocent or a mere bystander, as he seeks to portray himself,” the court added.

Haryana Tribune