Chandigarh: 5-year jail for CBI cop who extorted sedan from pharma firm

Chastising him for showing utmost disregard to the principles of honesty and fair play, expected from a public servant, a special CBI court has sentenced an inspector of the investigating agency to five years in jail in a 2016 case of corruption and extortion.

Threatening the officials of a city-based pharmaceutical company of false implication in a case, the convict, Ravinder Kumar Singla, had extorted a Honda City from the firm, inviting strong rebuke from the court.

“He was daring enough to force them to transfer its (car’s) ownership in his name or in his relative’s name. Though, at that juncture, the officials of the complainant company refused to succumb to his pressure and initiated the criminal law into motion by filing the instant complaint...He deserves to be punished to deter like minded public servants to curb the menace of corruption,” remarked the court of CBI special judge Alka Malik, while also slapping a fine of ₹1 lakh on the convict.

The court observed that the inspector obtained the car in question by corrupt and illegal means for his personal use, by abusing his official position. He put the officials of the complainant company in fear of implication of a false case with CBI and dishonestly induced them to deliver the car in question to him.

“Corruption by public servants has reached such a monstrous stage that the institutions which have been created for the purpose of serving the public are thwarting the very purpose of the same. Corruption by public servants is in fact paralysing the functioning of the public institutions, thereby hindering the very democratic polity of the state,” the court further said, coming down heavily on the convicted inspector.

“Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By virtue of this act, all public servants are warned that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences,” the court cautioned.

As per the prosecution, Ravinder was booked on May 24, 2016, on the complaint of officials of Nectar Life Sciences Ltd, a pharmaceutical firm in Sector 9.

Ravinder had approached the company’s office, claiming that he was posted in the area and his vehicle had broken down. He informed them that he needed to go to New Delhi for extremely urgent work, and demanded a vehicle from them.

When the company officials expressed hesitation, he told them that “it was very important for the company to maintain cordial relations with CBI”.

Under threat, the officials provided him a recently financed, brand new Honda City car, which he assured that he will return once he returned from New Delhi.

But he failed to return the vehicle even after a week. When the company officials contacted him, he told them that his assignment in New Delhi had been extended and he will not be able to return the car immediately.

He then threatened the company officials of false implication in a case, intimidating them that it will take years for them to prove their innocence, and their company’s name and reputation will be greatly harmed.

Thereafter, he insisted that the company transfer the car in his or his relative’s name, which the officials declined.

They further filed a complaint with CBI, leading to the inspector’s arrest. The car was found in possession of the accused and recovered.

Ravinder had joined CBI on September 29, 2008, and was promoted to the rank of inspector in 2013. Probe found that no inquiry or case pertaining to the phama company in question was given to him.

As per prosecution, Ravinder used the Honda City car from July 2015 to May 2016, and regular servicing expenditure was done at the behest of the company.

The accused regularly threatened the company officials of implicating them in a case if they demanded the car from him.

During trial, public prosecutor Narender Singh told the court that the accused was found in possession of the vehicle. Further, call recordings with the complainant company’s officials regarding the vehicle were also substantial evidence of corruption and extortion charges against him.