Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 197 (HP)

Kushal Singh Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-03-12

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.7.2012 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Corruption Case No. 04 of 2011, whereby the appellant/accused, (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for the sake of convenience), has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of convenience) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 24.5.2010, PW1 Sanjay Kumar along with PW2 Surjit Kumar visited the Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and made a written complainant, Ext.PW1/A to PW9 Dy. Superintendent of Police Ajay Rana stating therein that he was permanent resident of Village Keharwin, P.O. Baloh, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P.. He was contractor in PWD and Electricity Board. He was assigned the work of retaining wall of Tower No.87 of 132 K.V. D.C. Line from Chulah to Hamirpur pertaining to electricity board for Rs.5,00,000/- in the month of January 2010. He completed the work in the month of March 2010. He got verified the bill from the office of Executive Engineer, Electricity Board, Mattan Sidh, who after deduction/recovery passed the bill for Rs.2,96,000/-. He submitted the bill before the Accounts Officer in the office of Chief Engineer, Anu, for payment on 22.5.2010. The accused was employed as Accounts Officer. The accused asked the complainant to pay 1% commission of the total bill amount, which came to Rs.3000/-. The accused also told him to come to the office on 24.5.2010 along with money, otherwise he would stop the payment. PW9 Dy. Superintendent of Police Ajay Kumar Rana on the basis of the complaint, Ext.PW1/A, registered the FIR, Ext.PW9/A against the accused. The accused also told him to come to the office on 24.5.2010 along with money, otherwise he would stop the payment. PW9 Dy. Superintendent of Police Ajay Kumar Rana on the basis of the complaint, Ext.PW1/A, registered the FIR, Ext.PW9/A against the accused. He sent a letter through HC Sunil Kumar to SDM Hamirpur for deputing one official/officer to be associated in the vigilance raiding party and the case was entrusted to PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram for investigation. The demonstration about mixture of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powders was displayed by Inspector Khushi Ram to Sanjay Kumar, Surjit Kumar and SI Amar Singh in the Police Station and memo, Ext.PW1/B was prepared to this effect. At the askance of Inspector Khushi Ram, PW1 Sanjay Kumar gave him six currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each amounting to Rs.3,000/-. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and its numbers were noted down on a memo Ext.PW1/C.Inspector Khushi Ram again handed over treated currency notes to PW1 Sanjay Kumar with a direction to hand over the same to the accused on demand. PW2 Surjit Kumar was told by the police to give signal to the police as and when the bribe money was given to the accused. HC Sunil Kumar and Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal were associated in the raiding party. Inspector Khushi Ram, SI Amar Singh, HC Prem Chand, Constable Rakesh Kumar and Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal went in official gypsy No.HP-03-3025 driven by Constable Surender Kumar near the office of Accounts Officer, Transmission wing, HPSEB, Hamirpur, where complainant Sanjay Kumar and Surjit Kumar also met them. As per direction of Inspector Khushi Ram, complainant Sanjay Kumar went inside the office of the accused and shadow witness Surjit Kumar stood outside his office. Inspector Khushi Ram along with other police officials and witness Roshan Lal kept hiding themselves near the office of Accounts Officer, Transmission Wing, HPSEB, Hamirpur, by the side of the road. On receiving signal from PW2 Surjit Kumar, HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh Kumar went inside the office room of the accused and caught him from the wrists. Inspector Khushi Ram, Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal and HC Prem Lal also came in the office. Inspector Khushi Ram disclosed his identity and got washed hands of the accused in a plate and colour of the same remained natural water colour. Inspector Khushi Ram, Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal and HC Prem Lal also came in the office. Inspector Khushi Ram disclosed his identity and got washed hands of the accused in a plate and colour of the same remained natural water colour. However, a separate mixture of sodium carbonate was prepared and on mixing both the mixtures its colour changed to light pink and the said pink colour mixture was put in a nip, Ext.P1 and sealed with seal ‘H’ and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/A in the presence of witnesses. The accused produced six currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each from left pocket of his shirt. The currency notes were handed over to Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar, who tallied numbers with the numbers already noted down in the memo, Ext.PW1/C. The currency notes, Ext.P3 to Ext.P8 were sealed with seal impression ‘H’ in an envelope, Ext.P2 and was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/B. Pocket of shirt of the accused was also washed with plain water and its colour remained same. Mixture of sodium carbonate was prepared in a separate glass and on mixing both mixtures, its colour changed to pink and it was collected in a nip, Ext.P9 and was sealed with seal impression ‘H’ vide memo Ext.PW2/C in the presence of witnesses. Shirt, Ext.P11 was also sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW2/C. The seal impressions of seal ‘H’ were taken on a piece of cloth, Ext.PW11/A. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, Ext.PW14/A. The accused was arrested. The case property was deposited with the MHC, Police Station, SV & ACB, Hamirpur. It was sent to RFSL, Gutkar (Mandi) from where the report, Ext.PW9/A was received. The documents pertaining to the case were collected. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, prosecution sanction against the accused was obtained vide office order, Ext.PW10/A. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. According to him, there were always deficiencies in the bills of the complainant and he insisted him to remove the deficiencies to which he did not agree and due to this, the complainant falsely implicated him in the case. 3. The prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. According to him, there were always deficiencies in the bills of the complainant and he insisted him to remove the deficiencies to which he did not agree and due to this, the complainant falsely implicated him in the case. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment dated 23.7.2012, as stated hereinabove. . 4. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2012. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings and record carefully. 7. PW1 Sanjay Kumar deposed that he was a government contractor registered with Public Works Department. He also used to execute work of HPSEB on contract basis. The HPSEB had tendered work of construction of retaining wall for Rs.5,00,000/-. He completed the work of construction in the month of March, 2010 and submitted bills in the office of Executive Engineer, HPSEB Mattan Sidh. The Executive Engineer, HPSEB Mattan Sidh approved the bills and submitted the same to the office of Chief Engineer, HPSEB Anu. Accused was employed as Accounts Officer in the office of Chief Engineer Anu. The bills of the work were assigned to the accused. He went to the office of the accused and asked him about his payment. The accused told him to come to the office on 24.5.2010 and also asked him to pay 1% of the bill amount. The accused demanded Rs.3,000/-. On 24.5.2010, he and Surjit Kumar went to Vigilance Department, Hamirpur. He told the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance that the accused was demanding Rs.3,000/- from him. He submitted an application Ex. PW-1/A to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, demonstration about mixture of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate was displayed. Memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared. He along with Surjit Kumar signed memo Ext.PW1/B. The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked him to give him Rs.3000/-. He gave him six currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and numbers of the same were also written in a memo. Memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared. He along with Surjit Kumar signed memo Ext.PW1/B. The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked him to give him Rs.3000/-. He gave him six currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and numbers of the same were also written in a memo. The Deputy Superintendent of Police directed him to go to the office of the accused at Anu and hand over the treated currency notes to accused on demand. Memo Ext. PW1/C was prepared to this effect, which was signed by him, Surjit Kumar and also a police official. He went to the office of the accused at Anu and asked him to make payment of his bills, who demanded a sum of Rs.3000/-. He handed over treated currency notes to him. Surjit Kumar was standing outside the office. Surjit Kumar was told by the police that he would give signal to the police official as and when bribe money was to be given to the accused. The police officials were standing on the road. After the currency notes were handed over to the accused, Surjit Kumar gave signal to the police officials and the police officials entered the office and caught hold the accused from his wrists. In cross-examination, he deposed that he was working as contractor for the last about 3 ½ years. Bribe was also demanded from him prior to the incident also. He gave bribe to all the officials, who met him during his tenure as a contractor. He could not name the officers, who had demanded bribe from him. He gave bribe only in the office of PWD and HPSEB Departments. He did not know if the bills were to be dealt by Anil Sharma, Assistant Accounts Officer. According to him, he wrote application Ext.PW1/A outside the Vigilance Department. He admitted that by making overwriting he changed the date from 22.5.2010 to 24.5.2010. He signed Ext. DA, whereby his bills were already sanctioned. He volunteered that his signatures on Ext. DA were taken on 24.5.2010. When raid was conducted in the office, Ext. DA was handed over to him. His signatures were taken as a token of receipt and no separate receipt was prepared. Surjit Kumar was standing just adjoining the door of the room. The other police officials were standing outside the office at a distance of about 20 feet. When raid was conducted in the office, Ext. DA was handed over to him. His signatures were taken as a token of receipt and no separate receipt was prepared. Surjit Kumar was standing just adjoining the door of the room. The other police officials were standing outside the office at a distance of about 20 feet. He had disclosed to Surjit Kumar on 22.5.2010 and 23.5.2010 that the accused was demanding bribe money. He did not disclose to Surjit Kumar on 24.5.2010 about demand of bribe by the accused. 8. PW2, Surjit Kumar, deposed that he was also a government contractor registered with PWD Department. On 24.5.2010, Sanjay Kumar contacted him on phone to accompany him as he was going to collect his bills from the office of HPSEB. Thereafter, he went to Hamirpur, where he met him in Hamirpur Bazaar. Sanjay Kumar told him that his bills were submitted to the office of Chief Engineer, HPSEB, Anu on 22.5.2010. He also told him that the accused was demanding Rs.3000/- from him for sanctioning the bills. He along with Sanjay Kumar went to the Vigilance Office, Hamripur and Sanjay Kumar gave a written complaint to the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, the police officials gave demonstration of two powders, which were mixed in water separately and colour of the same remained natural and when both the mixtures were mixed together, colour of the same turned pink. Memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared, which was signed by him as well as police official. Sanjay Kumar handed over six currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each to the police and numbers of the same were written on a paper. The police officials told Sanjay Kumar to hand over the currency notes to the accused on demand. Memo Ext.PW1/C was prepared in the Vigilance Office, which was signed by him as well as Sanjay Kumar and police official. He and Sanjay Kumar went in a car to the office of the accused at Anu and the police followed them in another vehicle. Sanjay Kumar went inside the office of the accused. He remained standing outside the office and the police party was standing on the road outside the office. He was directed by the police party that as and when Sanjay Kumar would give signal to him and thereafter, he would give signal to the police. Sanjay Kumar went inside the office of the accused. He remained standing outside the office and the police party was standing on the road outside the office. He was directed by the police party that as and when Sanjay Kumar would give signal to him and thereafter, he would give signal to the police. He also went inside the room and Sanjay Kumar gave him signal that he had handed over the money to the accused. Thereafter, he came out of the office and gave signal to the police party. In cross-examination, he deposed that he went inside the office about 10 minutes after Sanjay Kumar entered the office. He did not know what conversation had taken place and what happened inside the room. Police officials came inside the room within one minute after he gave signal to them. Police officials were about 5-6 in number. He did not know that the bills of the complainant were already passed on 22.5.2010. 9. PW3, Sudershan Kumar Sharma, deposed that all the bills of HPSEB pertaining to construction of 132 KV Line from Chullah to Hamirpur, after passing same, were to be submitted to his office for payment. He proved on record copy of cash voucher dated 26.5.2010 vide Ext.PW3/A and first and final bill vide Ext.PW3/B. 10. PW4, Shaym Lal, deposed that the bills submitted by the contractors in the office of Executive Engineer after passing the same by Executive Engineer were to be sent to the Accounts Officer for pre-audit and after pre-audit the bills were to be sent to the office of M.D. Beas Valley Power Corporation Jogindernagar, for payment. The bills of contractor Sanjay Kumar were sent to M.D. Beas Valley Power Corporation, Jogindernagar vide letter Ext. DA. 11. PW5, SI Amar Singh, deposed that on 24.5.2010 at 11.45 A.M., Sanjay Kumar and Sujit Kumar came to the office and Sanjay Kumar gave a compliant, Ext.PW1/A that Accounts Officer, HPSEB, was demanding bribe of Rs.3000/-The Deputy Superintendent of Police registered FIR on the basis of complaint. The case was handed over to Inspector Khushi Ram for investigation. The demonstration was carried out by Inspector Khushi Ram. Memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared about the demonstration, which was signed by him as well as Surjit Kumar and Sanjay Kumar. The case was handed over to Inspector Khushi Ram for investigation. The demonstration was carried out by Inspector Khushi Ram. Memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared about the demonstration, which was signed by him as well as Surjit Kumar and Sanjay Kumar. Inspector Khushi Ram asked Sanjay Kumar to give him currency notes of Rs.3000/- and Sanjay Kumar gave six currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each to Inspector Khushi Ram and Inspector Khushi Ram treated six currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. The numbers of the currency notes were also noted down in memo Ext. PW1/C, which was signed by him, Surjit Kumar and Sanjay Kumar. Inspector Khushi Ram formed a raiding party. The Deputy Superintendent of Police gave an application to SDM to provide some official as witness and then Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal was deputed to associate as witness. Surjit Kumar was also sent with Sanjay Kumar who was asked to remain present outside the office and after handing over the bribe money give signal to the police party. According to him, Sanjay Kumar and Surjit had already gone to the office of HPSEB and thereafter, the police officials and witnesses went to Anu in Jeep and some on motorcycle. He did not remember who went on motorcycle. Surjit Kumar was standing adjoining the door of the office. HC Sunil Kumar was on the stairs. He along with Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal and Khushi Ram was standing outside the shop, which was closed. When Surjit Kumar gave signal, HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh Kumar went inside the office room and at the same time, he along with Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal, Inspector Khushi Ram also went inside the office. HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh Kumar caught the accused from his wrists and Inspector Khushi Ram disclosed his identity. Thereafter, hands of the accused were got washed with natural water. Sodium carbonate powder was mixed in water in a separate pot. The mixture of sodium carbonate and hand wash water was mixed together and the colour of the same turned slight pink. Inspector Khushi Ram asked the accused to produce bribe money of Rs.3000/-. The accused took out six currency notes of Rs.500/- each from his pocket and handed over the same to Inspector Khushi Ram, who further handed over those notes to Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal. Inspector Khushi Ram asked the accused to produce bribe money of Rs.3000/-. The accused took out six currency notes of Rs.500/- each from his pocket and handed over the same to Inspector Khushi Ram, who further handed over those notes to Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal. Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal tallied numbers of the currency notes with the numbers noted down in memo Ext.PW1/C. Thereafter, currency notes were packed and sealed in an envelope, Ext. P2. The envelope was also sealed with seal impression ‘H’. In cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know about the owner of the motorcycle. He did not know how many officials went on motorcycle. Total five persons were in raiding party. Five officials went in Jeep along with driver, Surinder Kumar. Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal was with them in the jeep. Office room of accused was visible from the place where they were standing out side the shop. Surjit Kumar gave signal about five minutes after Sanjay Kumar entered the room. He did not know how and when bribe money was given by Sanjay Kumar to the accused. He could not say if the persons who went on motorcycle were members of the raiding party. According to him, persons on motor cycle were not members of the raiding party. He did not remember if the persons on motorcycle were present on the spot or not. He along with Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal, HC Sunil Kumar, Inspector Khushi Ram and the driver was in the jeep. According to him, signal was seen by both Sunil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. 12. PW6, HC Umeshwar Singh, deposed that on 24.5.2010 Inspector Khushi Ram deposited case property with him. He entered the same in Malkhana register. On 4.6.2010 vide RC No.26/2010, he sent case property through HHC Gian Chand to RFSL, Gutkar, Mandi. 13. PW7, HHC Gian Chand, deposed that on 4.6.2010 he deposited the case property at RFSL Gutakar vide R.C. No.26/2010. 14. PW8, Inspector Amar Singh, deposed that on 21.12.2010, case file was handed over to him by Inspector Khushi Ram for further investigation. He summoned the complainant, Sanjay Kumar to Police Station, SV and ACB, Hamirpur. He recorded supplementary statement of Sanjay Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. He gave an application Ext.PW8/A to the Chief Engineer (Transmission) HPSEB Hamirpur with a request to hand over office copy of Ext. DA to him. 15. He summoned the complainant, Sanjay Kumar to Police Station, SV and ACB, Hamirpur. He recorded supplementary statement of Sanjay Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. He gave an application Ext.PW8/A to the Chief Engineer (Transmission) HPSEB Hamirpur with a request to hand over office copy of Ext. DA to him. 15. PW9 Ajay Rana, Deputy Superintendent of Police deposed that on 24.5.2010, Sanjay Kumar gave an application Ext.PW2/A to him, on the basis of which FIR, Ext.PW9/A was registered at Police Station SV & ACB, Hamirpur. Thereafter, he handed over the case to Inspector Khushi Ram for investigation. On completion of investigation, Inspector Amar Singh handed over the case file to him and he prepared the charge sheet and put up the same in the Court. The Challan was put up in the Court after receiving report Ext.PW9/B and sanction to launch prosecution against the accused. In cross-examination, he deposed that except registration of the FIR, no other proceedings of the case took place in his presence at the Police Station. 16. PW10, Om Parkash, proved on record Ext.PW10/A, whereby prosecution sanction was granted against the accused. 17. PW11, Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar, deposed that on the direction of SDM, he was associated as witness in vigilance case on 24.5.2010. He along with HC Sunil Kumar went to the Police Station, SV and ACB Hamirpur at about 12.50 P.M.. When he reached the Police Station, one Sanjay Kumar and Surjit Kumar were present in the Police Station. Inspector Khushi Ram told him that Accounts Officer of HPSEB was demanding bribe on account of passing bills of Sanjay Kumar. He went on motorcycle of HC Sunil Kumar to the office of Accounts Officer at Anu and other police official went in other vehicles and motorcycles. He was standing along with Inspector Khushi Ram adjoining to the office of HPSEB and one police person was standing on the stairs. After some time, HC Sunil Kumar and one another police official ran towards the office of the accused. He along with Inspector Khushi Ram also went inside the office of the accused. The accused was caught hold by the police officials from his hands. The hands of the accused were got washed in a plate and the colour of the water remained natural and thereafter, mixture of the sodium carbonate was prepared in a separate glass and its colour remained natural white. The accused was caught hold by the police officials from his hands. The hands of the accused were got washed in a plate and the colour of the water remained natural and thereafter, mixture of the sodium carbonate was prepared in a separate glass and its colour remained natural white. Mixture of sodium carbonate and hand wash were mixed together. Then its colour turned slight pink. Inspector Khushi Ram asked the accused to hand over bribe money, which he had taken from Sanjay Kumar. The currency notes were handed over to him. He tallied the numbers of the notes with the memo Ext.PW1/C. Thereafter, these currency notes were packed and sealed in an envelope Ext.P2. In cross-examination, he admitted that neither any demand was made nor any money was accepted in his presence. Sanjay Kumar was not known to him prior to the incident nor he knew Surjit Kumar prior to 24.5.2010. Two persons who were holding the accused from his hands were police officials and one of them was Sunil Kumar. He entered the room within 2-3 minutes after their entry. He did not know who had put the money in the pocket of the accused. His statement was recorded by the police at about 2.30 – 3.00 P.M.. His signatures were obtained on 2-3 papers. He could not tell how many signatures were totally appended on the documents. He did not know how many persons were in jeep. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was sitting in that vehicle. He had not seen anybody giving signal. According to him, whole of the proceedings were supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He did not know how many persons had come with the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 18. PW12, Bidhi Chand, proved on record posting order of the accused vide Ext.PW12/A. 19. PW13, Kanta Sharma, deposed that on 12.11.2010 she remained associated with the police. The bills of the contractor regarding the work were to be pre-audited by the Accounts Officer before payment. After pre-audit, bills were sent to the office of Managing Director, Beas Valley Corporation, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, for payment. After calling the bills along with alleged documents Ext.PW3/A to Ext.PW3/E, from Beas Valley Corporation, Jogindernagar, the same were sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SV and ACB, Hamirpur vide letter Ext.PW13/A. 20. After pre-audit, bills were sent to the office of Managing Director, Beas Valley Corporation, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, for payment. After calling the bills along with alleged documents Ext.PW3/A to Ext.PW3/E, from Beas Valley Corporation, Jogindernagar, the same were sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SV and ACB, Hamirpur vide letter Ext.PW13/A. 20. PW14, Inspector Khushi Ram, deposed that on 24.5.2010, the complainant Sanjay Kumar along with Surjit Kumar came to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, SV and ACB, Hamirpur. At about 11.45 A.M., he moved an application, Ext.PW1/A to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who after registering the case, handed over the investigation of the case to him. The Deputy Superintendent of Police moved an application before SDM Hamirpur to provide an official witness. He inquired about the averments made in the application from Sanjay Kumar, who told him that he was a contractor of HPSEB and PWD. He submitted a bill of Rs.5,00,000/- for the completion of work of 132 KV DC Line Chullah to Hamirpur for Tower 87 retaining wall in the office of Chief Engineer, Anu. The bills were sent to Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Mattan Sidh from where a bill of Rs.2,96,000/- was passed and thereafter, it remained pending with the accused. The accused was demanding Rs.3000/- being 1% amount for passing the same. He gave demonstration, as stated by other witnesses hereinabove. Memo, Ext.PW1/B to this effect was prepared. Sanjay Kumar gave six notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and its numbers were noted down in memo Ext.PW1/C and the notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Surjit Kumar was told to give signal when bribe money was to be accepted by the accused. Sanjay Kumar and Surjit Kumar were sent to the office of the accused and thereafter, he along with SI Amar Singh, HC Prem, HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh Kumar went in an official vehicle. HC Sunil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar went on a motorcycle. Sanjay Kumar went inside the office of Accounts Officer and witness Surjit Kumar was standing outside the office. He along with Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal and HC Prem Lal was standing outside the shop. HC Sunil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar went on a motorcycle. Sanjay Kumar went inside the office of Accounts Officer and witness Surjit Kumar was standing outside the office. He along with Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal and HC Prem Lal was standing outside the shop. When shadow witness Surjit Kumar gave signal, HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh Kumar went inside the office of the accused and at the same time, he along with Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal and HC Prem Lal went inside the office. The accused was caught from the wrists by Constable Sunil Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. He disclosed his identity and purpose of visiting the office. He got hands of the accused washed in a plate and colour of the hand wash remained natural water colour. Thereafter, mixture of sodium carbonate was mixed in a separate glass and its colour remained natural white. When both mixtures were mixed, its colour turned light pink. Pink colour mixture was put in a bottle Ext.P1 and was sealed with seal ‘H’ and taken into possession vide Ext.PW2/A. The same was signed by witnesses Roshan Lal and Surjit Kumar. Thereafter, the accused handed over six currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each from his left pocket. These notes were handed over to witness Naib Tehsildar, who tallied the numbers of the currency notes with the numbers noted down in Ext.PW1/C. The same were tallied to be correct. Pocket of the shirt of the accused was also got washed the manner in which his hands were got washed. Impressions of seal ‘H’ were taken on a piece of cloth vide Ext.PW11/A. The seal ‘H’ after use was handed over to Surjit Kumar. Memo Ext.PW2/C was prepared which was signed by witnesses Surjit Kumar and Roshan Lal as well as the accused. The accused was arrested vide memo Ext.PW14/B. In cross-examination, he deposed that bill Ext.DA was already dispatched for making payment. The complainant told him that wrong date was mentioned on Ext.DA. He admitted that dispatch number of Ext.DA was 1883-84. He had inquired this fact from the office of the Chief Engineer, Hamirpur. He did not remember how many persons had gone in the gypsy. The case was supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sunil Kumar was standing at a distance of about 10-15 feet from him below stairs. He admitted that dispatch number of Ext.DA was 1883-84. He had inquired this fact from the office of the Chief Engineer, Hamirpur. He did not remember how many persons had gone in the gypsy. The case was supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sunil Kumar was standing at a distance of about 10-15 feet from him below stairs. He admitted that there was overwriting qua date on complaint Ext.PW1/A. He did not ask the complainant about the overwriting. He admitted that Naib Tehsildar had made a statement before him that he went to the spot on a motorcycle driven by Sunil Kumar. 21. PW1 Sanjay Kumar, in examination in chief, deposed that he made the complaint Ext.PW1/A to be Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. Thereafter, demonstration about mixture of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate was displayed. Phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate mixture were mixed in water separately and colour of the same remained natural water colour and when the mixture of both the chemicals were mixed together, colour of the same turned slight pink. Memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared to this effect. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked PW1 Sanjay Kumar to give him Rs.3,000/-. PW1 Sanjay Kumar gave him six currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/-each. These currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein power and numbers of the same were also noted down in a memo. However, PW5 SI Amar Singh deposed that PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram asked PW1 Sanjay Kumar to give him currency notes of Rs.3000/- and PW1 Sanjay Kumar gave currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each to Inspector Khushi Ram. According to PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram, he asked PW1 Sanjay Kumar to hand over the currency notes. There is major contradiction as to who had asked the complainant to hand over the currency notes whether it was Deputy Superintendent of Police as per statement of PW1 or PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram as per statements of PW5 SI Amar Singh and PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram. 22. It has come in the statement of PW1 Sanjay Kumar that he was working as contractor for the last about 3 ½ years. Bribe was demanded from him prior to the incident also. It has not come on record whether at any point of time, he filed any complaint to this effect. 22. It has come in the statement of PW1 Sanjay Kumar that he was working as contractor for the last about 3 ½ years. Bribe was demanded from him prior to the incident also. It has not come on record whether at any point of time, he filed any complaint to this effect. According to him, he used to give bribe to all the officials, who met him during his tenure as a contractor. He admitted that he changed the date in the complaint Ext.PW1/A from 22.5.2010 to 24.5.2010. PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram did not seek any clarification why the date was changed from 22.5.2010 to 24.5.2010. 23. There is also major contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses the manner in which the raiding party was constituted and it went to the spot. According to PW2 Surjit Kumar, he and Sanjay Kumar went in a car to the office of the accused at Anu and the police also followed them in another vehicle. PW5 SI Amar Singh testified in cross-examination that total five persons were in the raiding party. Five officials went in the Jeep along with driver Surinder Kumar. Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal was with them in the jeep. However, PW11, Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar, who is an independent witness, deposed that he went on a motorcycle of HC Sunil Kumar to the office of Accounts Officer at Anu and other police officials went in other vehicles and motorcycles. PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram admitted in cross-examination that PW11 Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar made a statement before him that he went to the spot on a motorcycle driven by Sunil Kumar. It is also clear from bill, Ext.DA that the bill of the complainant had already been sanctioned. However, PW1 gave explanation that his signatures were obtained on Ext.DA bill, on 24.5.2010. HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh Kumar were also the members of the raiding party. According to the version of the prosecution witnesses, HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh entered the room of the accused when signal was given by PW2 Surjit Kumar. Both of them were material witnesses. The prosecution has not examined them. No explanation has been given why these material witnesses were not examined. 24. It has also come in the statement of PW11 Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar that PW9 Deputy Superintendent of Police Ajay Rana was sitting in the vehicle. Both of them were material witnesses. The prosecution has not examined them. No explanation has been given why these material witnesses were not examined. 24. It has also come in the statement of PW11 Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar that PW9 Deputy Superintendent of Police Ajay Rana was sitting in the vehicle. He also alighted from the vehicle at the same place where they alighted. He further deposed that whole of the proceedings were supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to PW14, Inspector Khushi Ram, the case was supervised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is, thus, evident that PW9 Deputy Superintendent of Police was actively involved in the entire operation. However, PW9 Ajay Rana, Deputy Superintendent of Police, in cross-examination deposed that no other proceedings of the case took place in his presence at the Police Station, except registration of FIR, Ext.PW9/A at 11.45 A.M.., on the basis of application, Ext. PW1/A. It is intriguing to note that why an Officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, deposed that nothing happened in his presence in the Police Station and thereafter. 25. PW2, Surjit Kumar, is also a contractor. According to him, he went inside office of the accused about ten minutes after Sanjay Kumar entered the room. There are major contradictions, as noticed hereinabove, which could not be overlooked by the trial court. Statement of PW1 Sanjay Kumar does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that he had admitted that he was offering bribe to all officials for the last about 3 and ½ years. It has come in the defence of the accused that there were always deficiencies in the bills of the complainant and the accused insisted him to forward his bills without removal of those deficiencies to which he did not agree. PW1 Sanjay Kumar did not lodge any complaint with regard to demand of bribe by other officials. Statement of PW1 Sanjay Kumar, whose conduct is also suspicious, cannot be believed. PW2 Surjit Kumar, government contractor, is friend of the complainant. PW11 Roshan Lal Naib Tehsildar, independent witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution the manner in which raiding party was formed and he reached the spot. As noticed hereinabove, the accused had already submitted the bill to the M.D. Beas Valley Jogindernagar, for payment as per Ext. DA on 22.5.2010, which was also signed by the complainant. PW11 Roshan Lal Naib Tehsildar, independent witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution the manner in which raiding party was formed and he reached the spot. As noticed hereinabove, the accused had already submitted the bill to the M.D. Beas Valley Jogindernagar, for payment as per Ext. DA on 22.5.2010, which was also signed by the complainant. Once the bill of the accused was already sent for payment after approval, there is no reason why the accused would ask for bribe. The version of the complainant is also doubtful that he was made to sign on Ext. DA on 24.5.2010. He has signed the bills voluntarily. 26. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar 2005 (6) SCC 211 have held as under:- “20. We must not forget that in a trap case the duty of the officer to prove the allegations made against a government officer for taking bribe is serious, and therefore, the officers functioning in the vigilance department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the court is not left in any doubt whether or not any money was paid to be public servant by way of bribe. It is also the duty of the officers in the vigilance department to safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap case may have been laid.” 27. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Champakali Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2012 SC 2263 have held that recovery of tainted money from the accused by itself is not sufficient to record conviction. Their Lordships have held as under:- “12. At the outset, we may state that the recovery part has gone totally unchallenged. Though a feeble attempt was made before the High Court and also before us, yet a perusal of the evidence and the test carried out go a long way to show that the amount was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants. It is the settled principle of law that mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to record a conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded or money was paid voluntarily as a bribe. It is the settled principle of law that mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to record a conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded or money was paid voluntarily as a bribe. Thus, the only issue that remains to be addressed is whether there was demand of bribe and acceptance of the same. Be it noted, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, recovery would not alone be a ground to convict the accused. This has been so stated in T. Subramanian v. The State of Tamil Nadu.” 28. The prosecution has failed to prove case against the accused. 29. In view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 23.7.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, in Corruption Case No.04 of 2011 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant/accused is ordered to be refunded to him. The bails bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.