Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Harendra Singh And Others on 7 October, 2017
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 42 AFR Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4483 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Harendra Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Singh,Amit Kumar Chaudhary,Ashutosh Pratap Singh,Lokendra Pratap Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh,V.K.Singh Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. This present Govt Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2007 passed by Special Judge/Anti Corruption, Bareilly in Special Case No.50 of 1997 by which the accused respondent no.1 has been acquitted u/s 7/13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act and 224 IPC and accused respondent nos.2 to 12 have been acquitted under Section 147, 225 read with Section 149 IPC by the trial Court.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.4.1992 one Satyaveer Singh, S/o Parveen Singh, R/o village Haripur Milak, Police Station Asmauli, Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad had given written complaint to S.P. Vigilance, Bareilly alleging that his and his brothers land is in the area of village Satpura and his Chak No.193 has been allotted and Chakbandi Akar Patra 23 has also been received by him. At the Western side of Chak No.193, Chak No.92 has been allotted to his father and his uncle. The complainant had given an application on 4.4.1992 to the Consolidation Officer to give chak road between Chak No.193 and 92. The said application was also got received on the same date to the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer but till said date, no chak road has been allotted to him between the said two Chaks. The complainant on 6.4.1992 met accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer at his village Hajibeda and requested him to allot chak road to him then the Consolidation Officer demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from him. The complainant expressed his helpnessess on which the Consolidation Officer told the complainant that he would not take less than Rs.1,000/- and if the said amount is given to him, then the chak road would be given to him failing which the same would not be given to him. The complainant was compelled to promise to pay Rs.1,000/- within 4-5 days to him though he did not want to pay the bribe but he wanted to get the said official caught red-handed. The complainant in his application had mentioned the number of all notes of rupees hundred denomination which is as follows:-
1. 9LU 201869, 2. 7RC 782585, 3. 2NB 946113, 4. 4BK 682652, 5. 9RF 346083, 6. 3QS 145769, 7. 0PV 036960, 8. 4AL 414975, 9. 6MU 962834, 10. 3NG 055746.
3. The S.P. Vigilance Sri D.K. Sharma noted his comments on 7.4.1992 and sought necessary permission from the Director Vigilance on which the Additional Director, Vigilance on 7.4.1992 recommended the Secretary Vigilance for necessary permission on which the Secretary U.P. Lucknow on 7.4.1992 was granted the requisite permission for the same. In pursuance of which Sri D.K. Sharma, S.P. Vigilance directed the Inspector Vigilance Randhir Singh Chauhan to led down a trap. On 8.4.1992 a sealed envelop was received by Sri Randhir Singh Chauhan from the office of Vigilance Department, Bareilly. The complainant was also present in the said office. The Inspector had talked to the complainant in the office alone about the facts narrated in the complainant's application in which the complainant reiterated the facts. He has shown the notes of rupees hundred denomination to him which would be paid by him on 9.4.1992 to accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer at village Hajibeda, Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad on a demand being made by him as a bribe which would be paid by the complainant to him. The Inspector got the number of the said notes tallied which were mentioned in the application of the complainant and the same were found to be correct. The said notes were returned to the complainant with an instruction that he would meet with the trap party in village Achauda Kamboh, police station Asmauli at 11 a.m.
4. The Inspector of the Vigilance department Sri R.P. Mishra, Sri Netrapal Singh, Sri Rajpal Singh, Sri Vijendra Singh, Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi and Driver Harpal Singh were instructed that they would be present in the Vigilance department on 9.4.1992 at 6.30 a.m.
5. On 9.4.1992, the trap party along with Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi and Harpal Singh proceeded on a Government Jeep No.9679 U.R.L with necessary items. Aman Singh, the trap Inspector was also taken from his house who also proceeded with him. The complainant Satyaveer Singh also met with the trap party at the place of destination. The independent witness Jwala Prasad, S/o Ram Dayal and Charan Singh, S/o Bheem Singh, R/o village Haripur Milak, Police Station Asmauli told about the trap who gave their consent. The Inspector also got the number of the notes matched with the particulars mentioned in the application of the complainant which was found to be correct. On the notes Phenolphthalein powder was put and thereafter the same was returned to the complainant. Some water was also arranged through Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi which was poured in a glass and Sodium Carbonate powder was mixed in the said mixture. The Inspector had washed his both the hands in the mixture, the said mixture turned into Pink colour. The said mixture was kept in a bottle and sealed. Again the glass was washed and mixture was prepared and the said mixture, the right hand of the complainant was washed and the said mixture turned into Pink colour which was kept in a bottle which sealed. The Inspector had explained the trap party and the complainant about the object that if when the notes with Phenolphthalein powder would be given to accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer, then the said powder would be on his fingers and when the same would be washed in the Sodium Carbonate powder, then the said mixture would be turned into Pink colour. The said recovery was prepared as Ext. 12.10 p.m and the same was read and explained to the trap party. Thereafter the trap party reached at village Hajibeda. The complainant was sent to trace out the whereabout of Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer and after some time, the complainant informed that the Consolidation Officer had gone in the office of Assistant Consolidation Officer and after some time, he would go to his residence for taking lunch. The trap party had hidden near a Primary School in the said village along with witnesses and waited for the Consolidation Officer who came towards North where the trap party was waiting. The complainant on meeting the accused Narendra Pal Singh, reiterated that he had given an application for allowing the Chak Road to him and on conversation, the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- from him and said if he gives the said money, his work would be done. Thereafter the complainant with his right hand gave Rs.1,000/- as a bribe to Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer who also took in his right hand and counted the same and assured the complainant that he should not worry on which the trap party along with the witnesses arrived and saw the incident and heard the conversation and apprehended the accused after giving their identity at 1.30 p.m. and took Rs.1,000/- from him which were notes of rupees hundred denomination. All the said notes were of Indian currency. The number of the notes were matched with the application which were found to be correct. The notes recovered and the accused was taken to the gallery of the house of Mahavir Singh where the trap party, independent witnesses and complainant were present. A glass of water was arranged by Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi in which Sodium Carbonate powder was mixed and the hands of Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer were washed and the said mixture turned into Pink colour and the sample of the said mixture was sealed in a bottle. Similarly after washing the said glass in the fresh water again, Sodium Carbonate powder was mixed and mixture was prepared in which the right hand of the complainant was also washed, the said mixture too turned into Pink colour, the said mixture was also sealed in another bottle.
6. The accused Narendra Pal Singh was personally searched and a wrist watch, some personal belongings were also seized. The accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer of the area Hajibeda, Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad was arrested informing about the offence. A fard recovery was prepared which was read to the witnesses, complainant and trap party and when the recovery memo of the recovered notes was asked by the trap party to be received by the accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer, then he refused to take it. Vijendra Singh and Rajpal Singh, Inspector were asked to bring the documents of the complainant Satyaveer Singh from the office of the Consolidation Officer, who brought the same and handed over to Inspector Randhir Singh Chauhan and the application dated 4.4.1992 along with an affidavit was found in it. Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi and Constable Driver were called for taking the accused. At about 2.45 p.m. in the noon Kamal Singh, S/o Jabar Singh, Mahavir Singh, S/o Umrao Singh, Karan Singh, S/o Umrao Singh, Janam Singh younger brother of Chran Singh, Mahipal Singh, S/o Chajju Singh, Master Peetam Singh, Ram Kumar Singh, village Pradhan, r/o village Hajibeda, Anil Kumar, S/o Peetam Singh, R/o Village Milak Nekpur, Khushiram, S/o Kharjan, R/o Nanadpur Beta, Nempal Singh, S/o Nand Singh, R/o Nekpur and Babu Ram, Kanoongo Chakbandi area Hajibeda and Hariom, S/o Ram Kumar, Village Hajibeda and 17-18 uknown persons gathered and reached at the house of Mahavir Singh came to the trap party and seen the said person. The accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer stated that the Vigilance people have apprehended him and he may be rescued by them as he had helped the said persons on which the said persons informed the trap party that the Consolidation Officer is the man and he may be freed and they would get the matter compromised with the complainant. The Inspector Randhir Singh Chauhan informed the said people that Narendra Pal Singh had caught red-handed while taking bribe of Rs.1,000/-, hence it is not possible for him to free and they would get him released on bail from the court concerned on which the said people became annoyed and started abusing to the trap party and threatened them of their lives and stated that they would see how the Consolation Officer is taken from there. The said persons told the said people not to interfere in the matter and not to take law in their hands as this is criminal offence but they did not pay any heed to the request of the trap party and assaulted them. They forcibly rescued the Narendra Pal Singh from the trap party who also tried to escape from the trap party. As the members of trap party were small in number and the people were in large number, they rescued the accused Narendra Pal Singh from the custody of trap party and he escaped from there. The said incident was witnessed by complainant Satyaveer Singh, witness Charan Singh and Jwala Prasad and other persons of the village Hajibeda.
7. The FIR was registered against Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1) D of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 224, 353 IPC and against other accused persons under Sections 147, 149, 186, 225, 353, 504, 506 IPC by Randhir Singh, The Vigilance Inspector.
8. The investigation of the case was carried out and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer u/s 7/13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 224 IPC and against other accused persons under Sections 147, 225/149 IPC which has been marked as Ext.7. The charges were framed against the accused for the said offences by the trial court who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
9. The prosecution in support of it's case has produced P.W.1 Randhir Singh Chauhan, Inspector, P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh (complainant), P.W.3 Charan Singh, P.W.4 Jwala Prasad, P.W.5 Ramesh Chandra.
10. The accused Narendra Pal Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and rest accused persons denied the charges against them. The accused Narendra Pal Singh had submitted in his written statement before the trial court that the application given by the complainant against him is fabricated document and the allegation levelled is false, frivolous and baseless. He was neither arrested by the trap party nor he was given any copy of the recovery memo nor he was rescued by any one. The witnesses have falsely deposed against him. He submitted that he was implicated in the present case because of the party politics of the village. In his written statement, he has submitted that between November, 1990 to June, 1992, he was posted on the post of Consolidation Officer in village Hajibeda, Pargana and Tehsil Sambhal, Police Station Asmauli, district Moradabad. The complainant Satyaveer Singh had hatched conspiracy against him by moving a complaint on 6.4.1992 to the Vigilance Department alleging that Chak No.193 was allotted to him and his brother and to the Western side, Chak No.92 was allotted to his father and uncle and he has moved an application on 4.4.1992 in the office of Consolidation Officer, Hajibeda, Tehsil Sambhal with the prayer to allot the Chak Road in between the said two Chak and the said application was received by the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer. In this respect the complainant alleged that on 6.4.1992 he met the Consolidation Officer Narendra Pal Singh at his residence who demanded Rs.1,000/- as a bribe for allotting the Chak Road and promised to pay the said amount to him within 4-5 days after arranging the same. On the same day, the complainant had given a complaint to S.P. Vigilance on which a trap was arranged by the Vigilance team on 9.4.1992 against him. He submitted that the application dated 4.4.1992 moved by the complainant Satyaveer Singh and got the same received to the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer as has been alleged was not moved before him nor he has taken cognizance on the said application and the said application was moved after one year for which there is no explanation for delay nor any affidavit was given along with it. The Chak No.193 and 92 with respect to other Chaks of the said village, publication was done prior 28.6.1991 under Section 23 of U.P. Consolidation Act. He has decided the objections on 28.6.1991 as a Consolidation Officer in which the said two Chaks' were also affected which belong to the complainant, his brother and his father and uncle. In pursuance of the said order, the revised extract was also issued under Section 23(3) of U.P. Consolidation Act, against the order passed by Consolidation Officer, an appeal was also filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation being appeal no.1390 of 1991 which was disposed of on 6.9.1991 in pursuance of which on the same day, the revised extract were issued after which the accused Narendra Pal Singh, the Consolidation Officer had no power to amend/revise the said Chaks. It was stated by him that the place where the Chak Road of Chak No.92 and 193 was allotted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which is to the Southern side. As per the Consolidation Act and Chak Rules, there is a rule that the Chak Road are to be linked to the main route and as Chak No.92 and 193 were of father and son, both the Chaks' were allotted Chak Road for which the confirmation has also been done under Section 23(1)(3) of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 10.9.1991 and after it's confirmation, there was no power or authority to any Consolidation Officer or to the accused Narendra Pal Singh for making any amendment or give new Chak Road.
11. He further submitted that after this there was no occasion for the accused to give the Chak Road to the complainant nor there was any question of demanding of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant for the said purpose. He has denied the trap laid down on 9.4.1992 or his arrest or receiving of any amount from the complainant. The complainant was compelling the accused Narendra Pal Singh for doing an illegal act as he had refused due to which he was annoyed, hence the said illegal proceedings were initiated against him by the Vigilance Department on the application of the complainant.
12. Against the acquittal, the learned trial court after scanning the evidence on record has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them and against the order of acquittal by the trial court, the State has preferred the instant appeal.
13. Heard Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State, Sri Ashutosh Pratap Singh and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and perused the trial Court judgment and record.
14. Learned AGA has argued that the acquittal of the accused-respondents by the trial court suffers from illegality on the ground that though the P.W.1 Randhir Singh Chauhan, the Trap Officer and the complainant P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh have supported the prosecution case against the accused-respondents but simply the independent witness of the trap party i.e. P.W.3 Charan Singh and P.W.4 Jwala Prasad have turned hostile, the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the trial court. It has acquitted the accused-respondents though there was sufficient evidence against the accused-respondents, hence, the impugned judgement passed by the trial court be set-aside. It was further urged by learned AGA that the trial court also committed error in considering the defence of accused-respondent no.1 Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer and his written submission u/s 313 Cr.P.C and has ignored the evidence of P.W.1 Randhir Singh Chauhan, Trap Officer and the complainant Satyaveer Singh P.W.2 and prayed that in view of the same, the judgment of the trial court be set-aside and the accused-respondents be punished.
15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned AGA and submitted that the impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court acquitting the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them has been passed after going through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence. He submitted that the defence evidence which has been adduced by accused Narendra Pal Singh in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and in his written submission goes to show that the trap which was led down against him appears to be misuse of process of law which was an illegal one and further the Chak Road which was being claimed by the complainant P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh in between the two Chaks' of his brother, father and uncle who moved an application on 6.4.1992 was not at all maintainable as the Chak which was allotted to them by the Assistant Consolidation Officer prior to 28.6.1991 after publication was made under the Consolidation Act and objections were invited prior to 28.6.1991 u/s 23 of the U.P. Consolidation Act and against the said order, an appeal was also preferred before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and confirmation was also made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 6.9.1991 and to say that the accused-respondent Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer has demanded Rs.1,000/- as a bribe for allotting Chak Road in between the two Chaks' of the complainant and his father is absolutely false one and Consolidation Officer had no right after the confirmation by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 6.9.1991 and the judgment and order passed by the trial court acquitting the accused-respondent Narendra Pal Singh and other accused persons from the charges levelled against them is absolutely legal and just in the eye of law and impugned judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity which may require any interference by this Court and the present Government Appeal is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
16. After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is apparent that the accused-respondent no.1 Narendra Pal Singh was the Consolidation Officer of Village Hajibeda,Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad and the allegations which has been levelled against him by P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh (complainant) that he demanded Rs.1,000/- for allotting the Chak Road between the two Chaks' i.e. Chak No.193 and 92 of the complainant, his brother and his father, uncle for which he had moved application on 4.4.1992 and the same was received on the said date to the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer who told him that he would not be allotted the Chak Road for which he made complaint to the S.P. Vigilance, by moving application on 6.6.1992 in pursuance of which a required permission was also taken from the competent authority on 7.4.1992 and trap was laid down by the trap party on 9.4.1992 wherein it has been stated that the appellant was caught red-handed taking Rs.1,000/- as bribe for the said purpose from the complainant and while he was being taken by the trap party, 13 accused persons out of whom, one has died, had interfered in discharging the official duty of the trap party and got rescued the accused Narendra Pal Singh from the custody of the trap party, does not appear to have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The defence version which has been given by accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and in his written submission that a publication has already been made prior to 28.6.1991 with respect to two Chaks' and other Chaks' of village Satpura and objections were invited prior to 28.6.1991 and the Consolidation Officer has passed an order on 28.6.1991 under Section 23 of U.P. Consolidation Act and against the said order of the Consolidation Officer, an appeal being appeal no.1390 of 1991 was also filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was decided on 6.9.1991 in pursuance of which a confirmation has been issued on 10.9.1991 under Section 23(1)(3) of U.P. Consolidation Act by the Settlement Officer with respect to two Chaks' and other Chaks' of the said village. There appears to be no occasion for the accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer to demand the illegal gratification for disposal of the application dated 4.4.1992 moved by P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh for allotting Chak Road in between the two Chaks' as he was not given the competent authority for allotting the same to him after the confirmation dated 10.9.1991. It is further apparent that the two independent witnesses P.W.3 Charan Singh and P.W.4 Jwala Prasad have not supported the prosecution case laying trap against accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer and they have turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.1 Randhir Singh Chauhan coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh (Complainant) does not appear to be worthy of credence regarding the trap laid down against accused-respondent no.1 Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer and further being rescued by the other accused respondents no.2 to 12, the learned trial court after scanning the entire evidence and material on record and relying upon the case laws cited on the issue of this Court and the Apex Court has rightly recorded the finding of acquittal against the accused-respondents which does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Court, therefore, the prayer made by the State in this Government Appeal for quashing the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is hereby refused.
17. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused respondents does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The learned trial judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal.
18. The present Government Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
(Vivek Kumar Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 7.10.2017
Gaurav