Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1336 (PAT)

Nawal Kishore Yadav v. State of Bihar

2012-09-20

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellant, who is an Amin, has been found guilty for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on both counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 48 of 1989. 2. The case was instituted on the basis of a complaint lodged by Damodar Singh on 19.06.1989 (Exhibit-6). In this complaint petition, it has been specifically stated that the survey operation was being conducted in his village Allahbaxpur. Uma Devi, wife of Brij Ballav Sharma, who is the brother-in-law (sadu) of the complainant had purchased 2 bighas of land in the said village. He supposedly requested the complainant to approach the Amin to get the names recorded in the revenue records. It is alleged that the Amin demanded a sum of Rs. 250/- as bribe in order to enter the name of Uma Devi in the records of right. On receiving the complaint, the Vigilance Department appointed Raghubir Prasad Singh as the Verifier, who accompanied the complainant Damodar Singh on 22.06.1989 to verify the truth of the allegations made. Exhibit-1 is the verification report which indicates that they went to the house in which the Amin was living at the relevant time and found him working. The complainant introduced the Verifier as the brother of his brother-in-law and requested the Amin to do his work. The appellant is said to have demanded Rs. 500/- in order to enter the name of the purchaser in the revenue records. The complainant is said to have bargained with him. Eventually, the complainant spoke to him in private and a sum of Rs. 250/- was settled between the parties. Apparently, there was one other person present during the talks. At the outset, it may be noted that the complaint petition which was filed earlier in time indicates that there was only a demand of Rs. 250/-. However, the verification report is contrary to the initial allegations levelled against the appellant as it is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 500/- which was reduced to Rs. 250/-. At the outset, it may be noted that the complaint petition which was filed earlier in time indicates that there was only a demand of Rs. 250/-. However, the verification report is contrary to the initial allegations levelled against the appellant as it is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 500/- which was reduced to Rs. 250/-. It may be highlighted at this juncture that the Verifier did not hear actual demand of Rs. 250/-. Strangely, these demands and talks were not only made in front of the Verifier and the complainant, but it is specifically stated that another person was present at the place of occurrence when the demand was made. In this background, the evidence of the witnesses is to be examined. 3. Altogether there are 12 witnesses in this case. The Verifier could not be examined as witness as he had died before the trial could commence. PW 3 has been tendered for examination. Apart from PW 7 Damodar Singh, the complainant, and PW 11 who is the witness of the seizure list, all other witnesses are members of the trap team. This Court in fact does not think it necessary to discuss the evidence of all the witnesses in detail as all of them have supported the case that they went to the house of the appellant on 23.06.1989 and when the Verifier gave a signal, the trap team surrounded the appellant, made a search and recovered the tainted money. It has been stated that the hands of the appellant was dipped in water, which turned pink. The water was sealed in three different containers and sent to the Forensic Laboratory for examination. It is admitted by the members of the trap team who are witnesses in this case that they have not actually seen the money being handed over by the complainant to the appellant as they were at some distance from the place where the trap was conducted. 4. Apart from some minor contradictions such as some of the witnesses have stated that the appellant was wearing a DHOTI, and the others have stated that he was wearing a LUNGI or that the statement of PW 4 that the trap team was in uniform, there appears to be no real contradictions with regard to the manner in which the trap was conducted. In fact, the independent witness to the seizure have also supported the seizure of the tainted money. 5. A defence has been raised on behalf of the appellant in the cross-examination while giving a suggestion to the witnesses that in fact, the complainant had not filed any application before the Amin or the Circle Officer regarding recording the name of his sister in the revenue records nor has the complainant produced any document to show that Uma Devi had purchased a piece of land in village Allahbaxpur. It has been suggested that the complainant wanted that the name of Uma Devi should be recorded by the Amin without any document of title and when the Amin refused to do so, this case was instituted. 6. This Court notes that the work of an Amin is to demarcate and measure lands in question and prepare a report, however, the name of a person can only be recorded in the records of right/revenue register on the orders passed by the Circle Officer. Considering this aspect, it would appear that there is no documentary proof to show that the appellant was approached by the complainant with a bonafide right. 7. The evidence of PW 7 Damodar Singh, the complainant, will indicate that the complainant has not come with clean hands or a clear-cut case with respect to the allegations levelled against the appellant. In the examination-in-chief, this witness has supported his case, however, in the cross-examination, at paragraph 55, he has stated that there was a demand of Rs. 500/-. At paragraph 63, this witness states that at the time when he approached the Amin, Shrawan Singh, Ramdhari Singh and Dineshwar Singh were present at the place of occurrence. Paragraph 65 would indicate that the complainant did not show any document to the Verifier or to the appellant. At paragraph 66, this witness states that there was a demand of Rs. 250/-. According to the complainant, the money was paid in the afternoon. This witness denies the suggestion that his brother-in-law had not purchased any land and he wants to get the name mutated without there being any supporting document. The evidence of PW 7 indicates certain aspects of the case, which leads this Court to doubt the correctness of the allegations levelled against the appellant. This witness denies the suggestion that his brother-in-law had not purchased any land and he wants to get the name mutated without there being any supporting document. The evidence of PW 7 indicates certain aspects of the case, which leads this Court to doubt the correctness of the allegations levelled against the appellant. The most glaring aspect is the fact, that when there was a demand being made, the complainant states that there were three other persons present inside the room where the demand was made. It cannot be believed that a man would publicly demand a bribe in the presence of the strangers who had no connection or have anything to do with the person from whom demand would be made. There is also a contradiction in the version as stated in the complaint petition where it is said that there was only one other person at the time of making the demand, whereas in the evidence, it has been pointed out that the complainant accepts the presence of three others. The other glaring aspect in this case is that the Verifier has not been able to establish that he had heard that there was a demand being made for Rs. 250/-. It was never the case of the complainant that there was a demand of Rs. 500/-. Thus, it is rather strange that the appellant who had demanded an enhanced amount of Rs. 500/- when he had initially accepted that he will do the work for Rs. 250/-. These aspects of the matter go to the root of the case inasmuch as it is essential that the Verifier should be witness to the demand of bribery. 8. There is another aspect in this appeal, which would be apparent on considering the evidence of PW 9, the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated at paragraph 8 that the appellant was working on daily wages and therefore, it was not essential to take sanction for prosecution in this case. On the other hand, it would appear from the judgment of the Trial Court that the appellant was posted as a Survey Amin during the survey operations going on in village Allahbaxpur within the district of Patna in the year 1989. Apparently, he had retired and was perhaps appointed on daily wages. On the other hand, it would appear from the judgment of the Trial Court that the appellant was posted as a Survey Amin during the survey operations going on in village Allahbaxpur within the district of Patna in the year 1989. Apparently, he had retired and was perhaps appointed on daily wages. The charge sheet in this case was submitted two years after the occurrence i.e. sometime in the year 1991. In the circumstances, it was essential to take sanction for prosecution. On the other hand, Counsel for the Vigilance Department has argued that since the appellant had retired, it was not essential to take sanction for prosecution in this peculiar case. 9. Be that as it may, it would appear from the entire gamut of the facts placed before this Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case to the hilt. 10. In the circumstances, this Court acquits the appellant giving him the benefit of doubt. The appellant will be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.