Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1045 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Krishan Kumar Bhandari

2003-07-30

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - State of Punjab has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment of learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 4.3.1991 vide which the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 161 Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegations in short against the respondent are that he being public servant employed as Mining Officer in the department of industries had demanded and accepted Rs. 2000/- from one Shavinder Singh Contractor by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant. 3. Shavinder Singh PW and one Chainchal Singh had taken a contract of sand of Nasrala Cho and Khudda etc for three years lapsing on 31.3.1988. The respondent was posted as Mining Officer at Hoshiarpur in January 1988 and was supervising the work of the complainant-contractor. He allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant threatening him that otherwise he would be black listed as contractor. Another demand of Rs. 8000/- was also allegedly made by respondent as amount due to him for the last 3/4 months but ultimately the bargain was struck at Rs. 2000/- per month to be paid in future. It is then the case of prosecution that on 21.1.1988, Shavinder Singh PW alongwith Chainchal Singh went to the office of Vigilance Inspector, Hoshiarpur and gave his statement Ex. PG which was recorded by Ved Parkash Vigilance Inspector. Didar Singh PW was also joined in the party. Shavinder Singh then gave twenty currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the Vigilance Inspector who applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and after recording their numbers in the memo Ex. PH returned those currency notes to the complainant and instructed him to hand over the tainted currency notes of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent on demand. Other relevant instructions were also given to Didar Singh and Chainchal Singh. One independent Malkiat Singh PW was also joined near Parbhat Chowk. As per instructions given, the amount was allegedly handed over to the respondent and when the respondent put it in the pocket of his right side, a signal was given by Didar Singh, whereupon the police party headed by inspector Ved Parkash reached the spot and recovered the said notes from the respondent. All other legal formalities were done at the spot. All other legal formalities were done at the spot. The respondent was consequently arrested. 4. After completion of investigation, the respondent was challaned in this case. He was duly charged by the trial court as indicated above. 5. The prosecution has examined Smt. Kaushalya Devi PW1, Harbans Singh PW2, Vishwa Nath PW3, Darshan Singh Inspector PW4, Lachhkar Singh ASI PW5, Constable Karnail Singh PW6, Shavinder Singh PW7, Didar Singh PW8 and Ved Parkash PW9. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PQ was also tendered. 6. The respondent in his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code admitted his place of posting but denied all the other allegations and took the following plea :- "I am innocent, Before this incident, Harvinder Singh son of Chainchal Singh PW was a defaulter to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- to our department and I had initiated recovery proceedings against him. Chainchal Singh bore grudge against me and was putting pressure not to pursue the recovery proceedings. On my refusal, Chainchal Singh alongwith Shavinder Singh, Malkiat Singh and Didar Singh who are all his close associates foisted this false case upon me in connivance with Shri Ved Parkash Inspector. All these witnesses are infact related to Shri Paramjit Singh Sandhu, the then S.S.P. Hoshiarpur, I never demanded any bribe from Shavinder Singh, nor I accepted the same." 7. In defence also the respondent produced one Constable Surjit Singh DW1 and Head Constable Surinderpal Singh DW2. 8. I have heard Mr. G.S. Hooda, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate representing the respondent. With their assistance I have also gone through the entire evidence. The impugned judgment has also been perused by me very minutely. 9. Besides the other lacunae in the prosecution case, the main weakness in the prosecution case which led to the acquittal was that there was no corroboration of the first demand of bribe money and as such the basic ingredient of the acceptance of the bribe money by the respondent is not proved. Shavinder Singh PW7 who is the star witness of the case deposed that in January 1988, the respondent had asked him to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as illegal gratification or he would be black listed as contractor and this demand was allegedly made by the respondent in the presence of Chainchal Singh. Shavinder Singh PW7 who is the star witness of the case deposed that in January 1988, the respondent had asked him to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as illegal gratification or he would be black listed as contractor and this demand was allegedly made by the respondent in the presence of Chainchal Singh. Chainchal Singh has not been produced by the prosecution as being given up as unnecessary. Didar Singh PW8 has deposed that he was not told by Shavinder Singh that the respondent was demanding Rs. 2000/- from him. The finding of the trial Court, thus, is that the first demand allegedly made by the respondent is not corroborated. I have no reason to disagree with the said finding. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove three basic ingredients namely - (i) demand of bribe money; (ii) payment and acceptance; (iii) recovery. In the present case, in my view the basic first ingredient is not proved to the hilt. 10. It is worth mentioning here that as per the finding recorded by the trial court even the second ingredient is also not proved by the prosecution. The learned trial Court has discarded the evidence of the shadow witness also because it was lacking independent corroboration. Didar Singh is the partner of the firm. Many faults have been noticed by the trial court in the statements of Shavinder Singh and Didar Singh the so-called main witnesses of the prosecution. In my view, these discrepancies make the prosecution case very weak. 11. The respondent heavily relied upon a letter Ex. DA written by him to Harbinder Singh son of Chainchal Singh dated 4.12.1987 requiring him to deposit Rs. 2,25,525/- which was due from them and it was made very clear in the said letter by the respondent that the said amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue and for this reason the complainant side was having grudge against the respondent. This letter strengthen the defence of the respondent. 12. I have reappraised the material on record and have also kept in mind the reasons advanced by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent. The view taken by the trial Court for acquitting the respondent is not at all unreasonable which would call for any interference. The finding of the trial Court is not perverse. 12. I have reappraised the material on record and have also kept in mind the reasons advanced by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent. The view taken by the trial Court for acquitting the respondent is not at all unreasonable which would call for any interference. The finding of the trial Court is not perverse. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of the respondent. Consequently, the order of acquittal is hereby maintained. The present appeal filed by the State of Punjab, resultantly, merits dismissal. Appeal dismissed.