Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 803 (HP)

Piar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-11-06

SURINDER SINGH

body2012
Judgment SURINDER SINGH, J. In the present appeal filed by the convict, a Patwari in the Revenue department, challenge has been laid to his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Corruption Case No.4 of 2010, decided on 6.1.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short “the Act”, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 and for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Act with the default clauses. Both the sentences aforesaid have been ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code. 2. The broad essential facts of the prosecution case as emerges from the evidence on record are stated thus. The appellant, hereinafter referred to “the accused”, was Patwari posted in Patwar Circle Ghial (Namhol), Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. (ii) PW6 Ramesh Chand resident of village Behli of the said Patwar circle was a PWD labourer. In the year 2009, his two cowsheds got damaged due to heavy rains. The accused prepared the case for providing compensation to him and PW6 aforesaid got relief of Rs.5,000/- paid in two installments from Tehsil office, Bilaspur. (iii) On 8.12.2009, complainant Ramesh Chand is alleged to have visited Patwarkhana and asked the accused to issue revenue papers as he was to apply for bank loan for the re-construction of his cowsheds. The accused reminded him of the recommendations made by him to get relief amount, thus demanded Rs.1500/- from the relief amount received by the complainant, in addition also raised a demand of Rs.500/- for supply of the revenue papers as asked for. (iv) It is alleged that PW6 Ramesh Chand disclosed about the aforesaid demand raised by the accused to his friend PW7 Gulaba Ram of his own village. (iv) It is alleged that PW6 Ramesh Chand disclosed about the aforesaid demand raised by the accused to his friend PW7 Gulaba Ram of his own village. For next two days, nothing was done by them, but on 10.12.2009, at about 7.30 a.m., PW6 filed a complaint Ext.PW6/A to PW9 Dy.S.P. Paras Ram in Vigilance Police Station, Bilaspur, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW9/A was registered for the above offences after making endorsement Ext.PW9/B there upon and constituted a trap party under the supervision of PW12 Inspector Smt. Chandra and the case file was handed over to her. (v) PW12 Inspector Chandra constituted a raiding party by associating Inspectors Mehar Chand, Vinod Kumar, S.I. Lachhman Dass, constables PW1 Madan Lal, Dharam Chand and PW10 HHC Sohan Lal. She gave demo to PW6 Ramesh Chand and PW7 Gulaba Ram, as to how the powders of sodium carbonate and Phenolphthalein when mixed together react and turned its colour into pink. Thereafter the light pink demo-solution was put into nip Ext.P1 and sealed with seal impression “P” and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/A. Seal after its use was handed over to PW7 Gulaba Ram. (vi) Thereafter, PW6 Ramesh Chand handed over four currency notes of Rs.500/-denomination each to Inspector Chandra. Their serial numbers were noted down, memo was prepared and then treated with Phenolphthalein powder. These were handed over to the complainant with a direction to keep them in safe custody and not to shake hands with anyone, but to hand over the treated currency notes on demand to the accused. (vii) The complainant put the currency notes in the left side pocket of his shirt. A memo Ext.PW1/B to this effect was prepared in the presence of the witnesses, duly signed by them. (viii) PW7 Gulaba Ram was made a shadow witness and directed to hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant and give signal to the raiding party when the currency notes would be handed over to the accused. Thus, both of them were sent to Patwarkhana, Namhol, in advance, followed by police raiding party headed by PW12 Inspector Chandra in office Vehicle No.HP-03-3249. (ix) Around 9 a.m., Complainant Ramesh Chand and Gulaba Ram reached Patwarkhana. Thus, both of them were sent to Patwarkhana, Namhol, in advance, followed by police raiding party headed by PW12 Inspector Chandra in office Vehicle No.HP-03-3249. (ix) Around 9 a.m., Complainant Ramesh Chand and Gulaba Ram reached Patwarkhana. PW1 Constables Madan Lal and Dharam Chand kept standing at a distance at a short cut on a bridle-path, whereas Inspector Chandra and other officials were at a distance from where the Patwarkhana was visible to them. (x) Gulaba Ram stood outside. The door of the room of the Patwarkhana was closed. In the meantime, police party came across labourers of Public Works Department namely PW2 Ram Pal and PW3 Gian Chand. They were also included in the raiding-party. Gulaba Ram gave signal to the police by moving his hand on his head. On this Constables PW1 Madan Lal and Dharam Chand entered into the room of the Patwarkhana followed by PW12 Inspector Chandra alongwith other police officials and the witnesses PW2 Ram Pal and PW2 Gian Chand. The accused was found sitting on the chair. PW6 Ramesh Chand and PW7 Gulaba Ram were also present in the room. Constable Dharam Chand caught hold left wrist of the accused and constable PW1 Madan Lal from right wrist. Thereafter PW12 Inspector Chandra introduced herself. She took one steel plate and two tumblers from the investigation kit alongwith the nips. All these utensils were washed with clean water taken from a pitcher kept inside the room. Hands of the trapping party were also stated to be washed with clean water, then the hand-wash of the accused was taken in a steel plate but the colour of the hand-wash remained colourless. Then his hands were washed with solution of sodium carbonate prepared on the spot, the hand-wash of accused taken earlier and hand wash of sodium carbonate were mixed together, it turned into light pink colour, which was preserved in nip Ext.P2, sealed with seal impression “P”. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/C in the presence of the witness and accused, who had signed it. (xi) Thereafter, PW12 Inspector Chandra asked the accused about the bribe-money. He disclosed having kept on a plank in the room. Then he was asked to handover the currency notes to which he did. It was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/C in the presence of the witness and accused, who had signed it. (xi) Thereafter, PW12 Inspector Chandra asked the accused about the bribe-money. He disclosed having kept on a plank in the room. Then he was asked to handover the currency notes to which he did. Serial numbers of the currency notes were compared with the currency note memo Ext.PW1/B prepared earlier in the presence of PW3 Gian Chand, which were found to be the same. These currency notes are Exts. P3 to P6 sealed in an envelope Ext.P7 with the seal impression “P”. Sample of seal was taken separately on a piece of cloth. (xii) Complainant Ramesh Chand also handed over the revenue papers Exts.PW6/C to E, to which he obtained from the accused after handing over the bribe-money, vide memo Ext.PW2/A. Spot map Ext.PW12/A was also prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused was arrested. An intimation of his arrest was given telephonically to his son. (xiii) Police during the investigation also took into possession papers pertaining to the relief provided to the complainant with respect to cowshed, vide memos Exts.PW5/A to C from PW8 Office Kanungo Bhola Nath. The appointment and posting orders were also obtained. (xiv) The case property was handed over to PW11 MHC Baldev Singh. The nips were sent for the forensic examination and the report is Ext.PW10/A. Later the accused was granted bail. 3. Finally, challan was filed in the Court. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial 4. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances, which were found attendant upon the accused were put to him. He admitted that he had prepared the case for compensation of the cowshed amounting to Rs.5,000/- in favour of the complainant in his capacity as a Patwari, but denied other circumstances. The circumstances, which were found attendant upon the accused were put to him. He admitted that he had prepared the case for compensation of the cowshed amounting to Rs.5,000/- in favour of the complainant in his capacity as a Patwari, but denied other circumstances. He took up the stand that on 3.12.2009, a complaint of PW6 Ramesh Chand and PW7 Gulaba Ram was marked by S.D.M. to him with respect to the dispute over a path against Balak Ram etc., with a request to stop construction, but it was found that the construction was being made by the said persons on their own malkiati land, thus, he was unable to remove it, therefore, the attitude of Ramesh Chand and Gulaba Ram became hostile towards him. Thereafter, on 9.12.2009, when he was present in the computer room in Tehsil office at Bilaspur, complainant approached him to get jamabandi. He went to the Patwarkhana, prepared the copies alongwith Khasra Girdawaries and five years estimate and handed over to Ramesh Chand on 10.12.2009 at 7 a.m. after receiving fee of Rs.7/- its entry was made in Roznamcha in the presence of Devi Ram and Suresh Kumar, who happened to be present there. Thereafter they left Patwarkhana. Around 9 a.m., they revisited the Patwarkhana and stood in the verandah. At that time, he had gone to offer water to the Pipal tree nearby. On return, he saw Ramesh Chand complainant sitting in his room. Simultaneously, police also reached and Ramesh Chand told them that the money was lying on the plank in the room. On this, the police forced him to pick it up and count the same, then got his hands washed. According to him, he neither demanded nor received any bribe-money from the complainant. He was framed in a false case. He also examined DW1 Des Raj Patwari and DW2 Devi Ram, Pradhan in defence. 5. DW1 Des Raj Patwari has proved entry in Roznamcha Ext.DW1/A dated 10.12.2009 which was in the handwriting of the accused, regarding the supply of documents to the complainant after receiving the amount of Rs.7/-, whereas, DW2 Devi Ram stated that on 10.10.2012 in the morning around 7 a.m., he was present in the Patwarkhana in connection with his work. At that time, four persons were also present. Out of them, he could only recognize complainant Ramesh Chand and Suresh. At that time, four persons were also present. Out of them, he could only recognize complainant Ramesh Chand and Suresh. Ramesh Chand was accompanied by some person who had handed over an amount of Rs.7/- to the accused and received the revenue papers from the accused in his presence and left the place towards Namhol. 6. The learned trial Court disbelieved the defence version, but however while relying upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, which is under challenge in the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT: 7. Shri A.K. Pathania, learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the learned Special Judge has failed to take into consideration the plea of defence which stands proved by preponderance of probabilities. He also referred to the evidence on record and ventilated that the material brought on record makes it graphically clear that the prosecution evidence exhibited material contradictions and failed to prove demand of bribe, acceptance thereof and hence the ingredients of the offences charged stand not established in accordance with law. In other words, according to him, the cone of the fact was not proved. It is also urged that there was a motive for the implication of the accused in a false case by laying a bogus trap. He made the reference of the statements of other witnesses, who were admittedly present on the spot. According to him, they have shaken the very foundation of the prosecution case. The learned Special Judge is said to have failed to consider the fact that it was a malafide prosecution against the accused. The leaned counsel submitted that the prosecution evidence suffers from perversity of approach and deserves to be axed as the complainant wanted to settle his score because the accused was not of his liking, as he failed to work for him to stop the alleged encroachment. 8. Contra, Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence forcefully argued that the statement of the complainant stands duly corroborated by the independent witnesses. The recovery part remained unchallenged in the statements of the witnesses and the accused has not offered any explanation worth the name as to how this money came into his possession. Further that the statement of the defence witnesses could not cause any dent to the prosecution case and it was rightly rejected. The recovery part remained unchallenged in the statements of the witnesses and the accused has not offered any explanation worth the name as to how this money came into his possession. Further that the statement of the defence witnesses could not cause any dent to the prosecution case and it was rightly rejected. Therefore, no interference is called for. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully, closely and cautiously scanned the evidence on record. FINDINGS: 10. As a matter of fact, the truth is the bases of justice delivery system for which the Judge is required to discern it from the very story projected by the prosecution evidence and documents placed before it in the light of the arguments advanced. 11. It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between the accused “may have committed the offence” and “must have committed the offence” which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognized as a human right which cannot be wished away as held by the Supreme Court in Narendra Nath v. State of M.P. [ (2004) 10 SCC 699 ] & Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra [ (2005) 5 SCC 294 ] followed by another recent judgment rendered in S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman [ (2011) 2 SCC 83 ]. Thus, every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. [Also see State of U.P. v. Naresh [ (2011) 4 SCC 324 Para 34]. 12. Thus, every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. [Also see State of U.P. v. Naresh [ (2011) 4 SCC 324 Para 34]. 12. For the purpose of proving a case under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, the prosecution is obliged to prove that there was demand of money which was not legal or in other words that the public servant was demanding illegal gratification in respect of an official act and he is in fact received or obtained the money as an illegal gratification, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant, or while holding office as a public servant only then a person can be convicted. If the recovery de hors the demand, would not be sufficient to convict the accused. 13. Even when there is no corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand of bribe by accused, it has to be accepted that complainant’s version is not corroborated and, therefore, evidence of the complainant cannot be relied upon, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Rao [ (2011) 6 SCC 450 ]. 14. Now the present case is required to be examined against the above legal principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. Though the statement of PW6 Ramesh Chand is categoric with respect to the demand having been raised on 7.12.2009 by the accused for paying him the amount of Rs.1500/- on account of recommending his case with respect to the damage caused to his cowshed by rains and in addition for Rs.500/- for supplying revenue papers, so as to facilitate him for getting the loan from the bank. He also stated that he disclosed about this demand to PW7 Gulaba Ram, his co-villager and for complete two days, he did not report the matter to the police and it was only on 10.12.2009, he had moved an application Ext.PW6/A at about 7.15 a.m. to PW9 Dy.S.P. Paras Ram in Police Station, Bilaspur, who registered the case in terms of FIR Ext.PW9/A. A perusal of said document shows that information was received in the Police Station at 7.30 a.m. and its entry was also made in the general diary. It is further admitted that Patwarkhana is located in Namhol and as per column No.5 of the FIR, the distance is 35 K.M. from the Anti-Corruption Police Station, Bilaspur. At the time of making the complaint and lodging the FIR on 10.12.2009, complainant as well as Gulba Ram both were present in the Police Station. In cross-examination, he stated that he had written his application Ext.PW6/A in the Police Station Vigilance itself and besides this, the police had also recorded his statement, but that statement of the complainant did not find the light of the day during the trial. PW7 Gulaba Ram stated that he alongwith complainant had gone to Vigilance Police Station on 7.12.2009 in the morning and not on 09.12.2009 as stated by the complainant, then they were sent to Patwarkhana Namhol and no demonstration proceedings took place in the Police Station in their presence. On this statement, he was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Surprisingly, a novel method was adopted by the learned Public Prosecutor which was also allowed to be percolated by the Court to this effect that his entire statement portion ‘A’ to ‘A’ was allowed to be put to him which was admitted to be correct and thereafter the witnesses toed the lines of the learned Public Prosecutor and admitted all the suffusions put to him with respect to the recovery. Legally, the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be used to contradict him and not for corroboration. Significantly, in cross-examination, he admitted that 3-4 days earlier to the alleged occurrence, they had also visited Vigilance Police Station. At that time, police officials were present and disclosed to the police that the accused was demanding Rs.1500/- on account of recommending the compensation case and Rs.500/- for issuing the revenue papers. The police is stated to have recorded their signed versions, but those documents are not on record nor there is any procedure recognized by law to get the signed statements by the police. If this has been done, they owe explanation under what circumstance they did it. The police is stated to have recorded their signed versions, but those documents are not on record nor there is any procedure recognized by law to get the signed statements by the police. If this has been done, they owe explanation under what circumstance they did it. He stated that thereafter the police asked them to come after 3-4 days and even on that day, when they visited Police Station on 10.12.2009, there statements were recorded and after this, they were asked to reach Namhol at 9 a.m. and police did not carry out any other proceedings in the office on that day, whereas, the complainant in his cross-examination stated that he did not remember having visited the Police Station earlier to the said date, except that on 2.12.1999, he alongwith Gulaba Ram had gone to Bilaspur and had engaged Shri Shyam Lal Thakur, Advocate to get prepare an application (Ext.DX) regarding the encroachment which was moved before the SDO (Civil) Bilaspur. It bears endorsement thereon by the S.D.M. on 3.12.2009, to the Patwari for its necessary action and report compliance. 15. Pertinently, PW1 admitted that the Patwari had visited the spot, but did not remove the encroachment. Thereafter, they disclosed this fact to their Advocate that the Patwari had not done anything on the spot, but he denied that at the behest of the Advocate, he made complaint to the Police in the present case. He also denied that the revenue papers demanded by him were also prepared and were handed over to him prior to the alleged occurrence. PW7 Gulaba Ram also admitted that Balak Ram, their neighbour had started construction of the house, which had blocked the path and they had approached the Patwari with application Ext.DX for removing the encroachment, but he did not take any action and due to this reason the path remained blocked. He further stated that thereafter, they had been approaching the Patwari continuously for two days, for the said purposes but in the mean time Balak Ram had completed the construction. They informed their advocate Shri Shyam Lal and further that on the day went to the advocate they had also gone to the Vigilance Police Station. He further stated that he as well as the complainant and other villagers were aggrieved due to blockade of the path. They informed their advocate Shri Shyam Lal and further that on the day went to the advocate they had also gone to the Vigilance Police Station. He further stated that he as well as the complainant and other villagers were aggrieved due to blockade of the path. Further according to him, he had gone with the complainant on 10.12.2009 to get the revenue papers which were handed over by the Patwari to the complainant in his presence and no demand of money was made by the accused. At that time Dharam Pal, Suresh and Ram Lal were also present in the Patwarkhana. According to the complainant, none of them had visited the Vigilance Police Station prior to 10.12.1999 with respect to this case, but Gulaba Ram admitted that they had approached the accused in the computer room of Tehsil office and he had told him to come next day i.e. on 10.12.2009 to collect the revenue papers. PW7 Gulaba Ram also in the tale end of the cross-examination stated having disclosed to the Vigilance in the evening on 9.12.2009 that means, the complainant as well as alleged shadow witness Gulaba Ram both had been in the constant touch with their Advocate and also with the Vigilance police prior to 10.12.2009 which gives a reason to doubt that some illegal design was being perpetrated against the accused as a vindication by the complainant to fault to revenue encroachment allegedly done by Balak Ram and others, even after exerting pressure on Patwari-accused. 16. Therefore, the prosecution case requires a proper and close scrutiny against the above proved facts and defence raised. For that I would like to go back to the statement of the complainant PW6 Ramesh Chand. He stated that he had moved an application Ext.PW6/A on 10.12.2009 at 7.15 a.m. in Vigilance Police Station, Bilaspur, at that time Gulaba Ram was also with him and not on 7.12.2009 as stated by Gulaba Ram. The demonstration was given by the police in their presence. The demo solution was taken into possession in a nip Ext.P1, which was sealed with seal impression “P” vide memo Ext.PW1/A. PW12 Inspector Chandra handed over the seal after its use to PW7 Gulaba Ram. Thereafter they reached the spot and got recovered treated currency notes aforesaid. The hand-wash was also sealed with seal “P” as alleged. The demo solution was taken into possession in a nip Ext.P1, which was sealed with seal impression “P” vide memo Ext.PW1/A. PW12 Inspector Chandra handed over the seal after its use to PW7 Gulaba Ram. Thereafter they reached the spot and got recovered treated currency notes aforesaid. The hand-wash was also sealed with seal “P” as alleged. The above version has also been stated by PW12 Inspector Chandra in the same way. From the above evidence, it is clear that (i) demo was given and the demo-nip Ext. P1 was sealed (ii) seal after its use was handed over to Gulaba Ram, whereas Gulaba Ram PW-7 has categorically denied having given any demo and sealing of nip Ext. P1, as alleged and further when seal was handed over to Gulaba Ram after demo how it came again in the hands of PW-12 Inspector Chandra for sealing another Ext. P-2 nip of hand-wash remains a mystery. 17. Further, in cross-examination, PW6 Ramesh Chand stated that when he entered the room, on the right side there was a table and Chair and the accused was doing work at that time and the actual office room was in the left side, the door of which was closed. The revenue papers were also prepared by the accused. He denied that when he entered the room the accused was not present there and had gone to perform the Puja before the Pipal tree, but stated that after he entered the room, accused had gone to perform Puja at a distance in the Patwarkhana complex and he remained sitting in the room till he returned after about two minutes. When the police entered, he was asked about the acceptance of the bribe money to which he refused. He further stated that he himself had shown the place to the police where the bribe money was kept by the accused and was visible while standing in the room. When the police entered, he was asked about the acceptance of the bribe money to which he refused. He further stated that he himself had shown the place to the police where the bribe money was kept by the accused and was visible while standing in the room. According to him, the hands of the accused were washed and his hand wash when mixed with another solution, it turned pink and thereafter the accused picked up the money from the plank and the currency notes were put into envelope, whereas PW7 Gulaba Ram admitted that when he alongwith complainant reached near the Patwarkhana, Ramesh sat inside the Patwarkhana and accused had gone out to offer prayer before the Pipal tree and returned after about 2-3 minutes to the room. When the accused put off his shoes in the room, immediately after about 5 minutes, the police entered inside. Ramesh complainant was already sitting inside the room and admitted that when the accused was apprehended by the police, he asked the reason and told that he had not committed anything and denied having received any bribe money. Gulaba Ram denied that Ramesh Chand had pointed out that the money was lying on the plank, but stated that it was shown by the accused and he took money from the place of worship, counted it and handed over to the police. Then his hand-wash was taken, which turned pink. He also stated that accused met him outside the room when he had gone to perform the Puja and asked him to sit inside the room. 18. PW2 Ram Pal, who was admittedly present at Namhol at the relevant time, was associated by the police in the raiding party. He stated that Patwari was sitting in the room of Parwarkhana. Significantly he also stated that the police official told him that the accused took bribe from Ramesh Chand and got recovered the money from the place of worship to which Ramesh Chand disclosed that bribe money was kept there and it was thereafter this was taken into possession. He was declared hostile. He was also confronted with the statement recorded by the police, however, in the cross-examination conducted by the accused he admitted the presence of PW3 Gian Chand with him. He stated that the accused was offering Puja outside near the Pipal tree. He was declared hostile. He was also confronted with the statement recorded by the police, however, in the cross-examination conducted by the accused he admitted the presence of PW3 Gian Chand with him. He stated that the accused was offering Puja outside near the Pipal tree. On his return in their presence the Patwari was asked by the police to pick up the currency notes from the plank. He also stated that on the direction of the police, the accused had picked up the currency notes from plank and he was asked to count the same and after counting the currency notes, these were handed over to the police, then the police started further proceedings. 19. Very importantly and significantly, he had stated that after the recovery of the currency notes, hand-wash of the accused was taken and further that the revenue papers were lying on the table, which were taken into possession. He also stated that he had made the same statement to the police, which he had made in the Court. He stated that repeatedly the accused was pleading that he had not accepted any bribe as alleged but he was implicated in a false case. He also stated to have told the police that he had gone to offer water to the Pipal tree and in his absence, Ramesh Chand had planted the currency-notes at the plank. 20. Further, PW3 Gian Chand has also caused a dent to the prosecution case. In cross-examination, he stated that at about 8.45 a.m., he alongwith Ram Pal had gone to Patwarkhana with the police and they noticed one person sitting alone inside Patwarkhana alongwith the accused. The person sitting told the police that the currency notes had been kept on the plank near the place of worship which were recovered and got tallied with the memo already prepared earlier. In cross-examination, he stated that he had seen the accused offering the water to Pipal tree, situated below Patwarkhana and after offering Puja, the accused came and sat in the verandah of the Patwarkhana facing towards the room while taking of shoes. Police had over-powered him meaning thereby that he had not yet entered the room where the accused and Ramesh Chand were sitting. Police had over-powered him meaning thereby that he had not yet entered the room where the accused and Ramesh Chand were sitting. He also stated that the police took him inside the room and asked him to produce the currency notes and accused told that he neither demanded nor received any bribe money. On this, the complainant told that the currency notes were kept by the accused on the plank. Thereafter the police asked the accused to pick up the notes from the plank and hand over to them after counting it. He also admitted in his cross-examination conducted on 1.11.2011 that the hand-wash of the accused was taken after he had counted the currency notes, on this, he was allowed to be re-cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. Then the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was put to him in extenso, to which he admitted but regarding hand- wash, stated that it was carried out after the recovery. 21. Further the statement of PW1 Madan Lal, Constable is also worth noting. In his cross-examination he stated that that the accused Patwari was performing Puja when PW6 Ramesh Chand and PW7 Gulaba Ram reached Patwarkhana, and they kept on waiting outside and complainant Ramesh Chand had entered the room of the Patwari. Gulaba Ram was standing outside. On getting signal from the shadow witness, the police entered the room and the accused was trapped. When asked about bribe money, accused denied having received the same. However, it was complainant Ramesh Chand who informed them that it was kept at the place of worship on a plank which was visible from a distance. He also stated that the accused was also directed to produce the treated money and thereafter his hand-wash was taken. He admitted that he and Constable Dharam Chand both were recommended for the award in the instant case. 22. PW12 Inspector Chandra stated that when the accused was trapped, he was asked about the bribe money and according to her, it was kept on the plank near the place of worship in sharp contradiction with the statement of PW3 Gian Chand. 22. PW12 Inspector Chandra stated that when the accused was trapped, he was asked about the bribe money and according to her, it was kept on the plank near the place of worship in sharp contradiction with the statement of PW3 Gian Chand. She also stated that when the accused was trapped, he flatly refused to take the money and on this Ramesh Chand had pointed out that the money was lying on the plank and not as stated by Ramesh Chand and Gulaba Ram that the accused had pointed out that it was lying on the plank. It was PW1 the official witness who stated that the accused was directed to take money, but PW12 aforesaid stated that the accused himself picked up the currency notes lying on the plank. Very pertinently, she also stated that when the accused picked up the money and counted the currency notes, thereafter his hands were washed, this shatters the entire prosecution case. She also admitted that the trap party has seen the accused offering water to the Pipal tree. Conclusion: 23. There are two versions deducible from the record as aforesaid. One goes in favour of the accused and another to some extent against him. But, on the critical analysis, it emerges that the complainant and Gulaba Ram both were not happy with the accused as he failed to remove the encroachment alleged to have been done by Balak Ram and others, because according to the accused, he could not do so as the construction was being made on the Malkiati land. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant as well as Gulaba Ram had been approaching their counsel at Bilaspur and also meeting the Vigilance police which shell out the extent of prejudice against the accused. Further, there are major and material contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses as well as the trap witnesses as pointed above with respect to the demand, recovery of money and in the statements of the complainant as well as Gulaba Ram with respect to visiting of the Vigilance Police between 7.12.2009 to 10.12.2009. 24. The above proved facts and circumstances raise presumption that the trap was designed only to implicate the accused. There is an ample evidence on record that the complainant had entered the room of the Patwarkhana when the accused was offering Puja outside near the Pipal tree. 24. The above proved facts and circumstances raise presumption that the trap was designed only to implicate the accused. There is an ample evidence on record that the complainant had entered the room of the Patwarkhana when the accused was offering Puja outside near the Pipal tree. Gulaba Ram was also with him and the evidence also indicates that the police was also present with them. When the accused returned and sat in the verandah, he was caught by the police and asked about the currency-notes to which he flatly refused. Whereas the defence version stands probablised that it was the complainant who pointed out about the currency-notes lying over a plank near the place of worship. The police directed the accused to pick-up and count money and then hand over to them. It was only thereafter his hands were washed. Further, there is no evidence that the seal which was already with Gulaba Ram, was taken from him to seal the hand-wash of the accused collected in nip (Ext. P-2) sent for chemical analysis. 25. In corruption cases, whenever the evidence of the complaint creates some reasonable doubt, the doubt has to be resolved in favour of the accused as the order of conviction and sentence on such tainted evidence would not only be unjust, illegal and improper to the honest public servant, but it would also certainly demoralize such public servants and thereby ultimately affect the efficiency of the public administration. 26. Thus taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of this particular case, as discussed above at length in the light of settled principles of law, I have no hesitation whatsoever in holding that the learned trial Court has completely mis-directed itself in placing implicit reliance upon the contradictory evidence of the prosecution and in this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 27. In result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge is hereby quashed and set-aside. The accused stands accordingly acquitted for the offences charged, by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. He is already on bail, the bonds furnished by him are discharged. The fine amount, if any deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him. 28. The currency-notes Exts. The accused stands accordingly acquitted for the offences charged, by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. He is already on bail, the bonds furnished by him are discharged. The fine amount, if any deposited by the accused shall be refunded to him. 28. The currency-notes Exts. P-3 to P6 be disposed of in accordance with law and relevant instructions issued by the State Government in this behalf. 29. The appeal stands disposed of. 30. Send down the records.