Taking a dig at one of such officers, Justice H S Bhalla questioned the role of Surinder Pal Singh, SSP, Vigilance Bureau, in the case.

“You formed the team of the best officers to investigate Virk’s case. Like an honest officer, Surinder Pal should have disclosed the fact that his wife was a prime beneficiary in the Society. Why was he not removed from the investigating team? Are there no other police officers in Punjab Police?” Justice Bhalla asked.

The conduct of the Director, Vigilance Bureau, Sumedh Singh Saini, was also questioned by the court. “If the Director knew that Surinder Pal’s wife had purchased two plots in the Society, why did he not remove Surinder Pal from the team. Let him (the director) come here and explain all this,” the Judge told the law officer.

Taking the defence that Surinder Pal’s wife was not a beneficiary, Reeta Kohli, the law officer, stated that by merely purchasing the plot, she had not become the beneficiary in the case. “You have no explanation for this point. Are you trying to say she would have been a beneficiary only if she bought the entire property of the Society?” the Judge quipped.

Earlier, the defence counsel, senior advocate R S Cheema resented the stand taken by the Vigilance that the defence had tried to mislead the Court by supplying wrong information. Vigilance had taken the stand that Surinder Pal was not the complainant in the case and was only one of the IOs who had compiled the information dug out by other IOs in the team.

Contesting Vigilance’s claim, Cheema submitted that Surinder Pal was the soul of the case. He maintained that it was Surinder Pal who had lodged the FIR and had headed the team to arrest Virk. “Surinder Pal was the one who sought the police remand of Virk by the trial court and had played a pivotal role in Virk’s case,” Cheema added.

He also raised eyebrows over the document produced by the Vigilance in which it was stated that Surinder Pal had only to compile the entire information. “The document has been produced now just to cover up the entire issue. It’s not genuine,” Cheema said.

The ‘disputed’ selection of Sumedh Singh Saini as the Director, Vigilance, was also raised in the Court today as Cheema alleged that Saini was handpicked by the present government by repealing the Act and was Virk’s serious enemy.

“There is no officer above Saini in the Vigilance and it is for the first time in the history that an officer of IG level is heading the Vigilance Bureau. No Chief Director has been appointed till date to govern his act,” Cheema maintained.