Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 March, 2014
CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 (O&M)
Decided on:-March 26th , 2014.
Randhir Singh. .........Appellant.
Versus
State of Punjab. .........Respondent.
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.
*****
Argued by:- Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 8.4.2003 passed by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which accused-appellant Assistant Sub-Inspector Randhir Singh was held guilty in case FIR No.54 dated 18.9.1999 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) and was sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence In default
Under Section 7 of the RI for six months and fine RI for 15 days
Act. of Rs.1,000/-
Under Section 13(2) RI for one year and fine RI for one month
of the Act of Rs.4,000/-
Yag Dutt
2014.04.01 16:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -2-
However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, put in a narrow compass, is as under:
The accused was posted as ASI in Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh. M/s North India Pipe Limited, Dirba, District Sangrur was engaged in manufacturing of iron pipes after purchasing raw material from Mandi Gobindgarh. Thereafter, it used to sell their final products i.e. iron pipes in the open market in and outside the State of Punjab. For bringing raw material from Mandi Gobindgarh to their company and for sending the finished products in and outside the State of Punjab, the company was using its own trucks. Truck No.PB-13G-1684 of the company had met with an accident on 15.9.1999. The said truck had been impounded by the police of Mandi Gobindgarh. Baldev Singh, an employee of the company on coming to know of the accident had sent the information to Megh Raj, Director of the company. The truck was to be released on Superdari. The matter regarding involvement of driver of their truck was to be solved. On 17.9.1999, accountant Baldev Singh went to the Court Complex, Amloh and for release of the truck on Superdari, had made an application through a lawyer. This application was marked to SHO, Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh for his report. The complainant accompanied by accountant Baldev Singh, then went to Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh.
The accused was investigating the said case. He demanded Rs.25,000/- for making report on the application for release of the truck on Superdari, to which proposition the complainant did not agree. Finally, the matter was settled at Rs.8,000/-. As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe money, he came back with a false promise to the accused to meet him again on 18.9.1999. On return to his office at Dirba, the complainant talked about the entire episode to his Munim Narain Dutt.
Taking a decision to report the matter to the police, the Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -3- complainant approached DSP (Vigilance), Patiala and made his statement (Ex.P4) on which endorsement (Ex.P4/A) was made and on its basis, formal FIR (Ex.P4/B) was registered.
A trap was organized to nab the accused while accepting the demanded bribe. To achieve that end, the complainant produced 16 notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each, details whereof were taken down in a separate memorandum. Applying phenolphthalein powder (hereinafter mentioned as P. Powder) thereon, the said currency notes were handed over to the complainant vide memo Ex.P5. These were to be given to the accused as demanded bribe. Narain Dutt was put as a shadow witness. He was to accompany the complainant and was to pass on a signal to the raiding party after the tainted currency notes were to be passed over by the complainant to the accused. On their way, the investigating officer had also joined one Devinder Kumar, a teacher, to witness the entire episode.
It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the raiding party, as planned, left for laying a trap on the accused in his office. Complainant Megh Raj and shadow witness Narain Dutt went inside the office. On receiving the pre-settled signal from shadow witness Narain Dutt, the investigating officer accompanied by other members of the raiding party went inside the office of the accused. On reaching inside, the investigating officer introduced himself, and told the accused not to change his position. Thereafter, spot investigations started.
Investigating officer arranged a glass of water wherein sodium carbonate powder was added. Thereafter, hands of the accused one by one were got dipped into that solution which resulted in change of colour of the water to light pink. It was then transferred in a separate nip which was sealed by the investigating officer. Said nip was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.P7). The currency notes were recovered from the Dak file. Their details Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -4- were compared with details as had been recorded in a memo already prepared. Details of the currency notes recovered, tallied with the details of currency notes in the memo. Application of the complainant for Superdari of the truck on which the accused was to make report (Ex.P10) had also been taken in possession during investigations vide memo (Ex.P11). Police file pertaining to investigations, of this case was also taken into possession by memo (Ex.P11). Statements of witnesses were recorded. Investigations were completed. Handwash nip was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. On completion of investigations, report under Section 173 Cr.PC was finalised.
3. On being charge-sheeted for commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To sustain the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. In addition to the complainant (PW5), the prosecution had placed heavy reliance on deposition of shadow-witness Narain Dutt (PW7) and independent witness Devinder Kumar (PW8). The investigating officer DSP Bhag Singh (PW9) was also examined to strengthen the prosecution case. Baldev Singh (PW5/A) had proved sanction order Ex.PW13, whereas ASI Traffic Satwinder Singh proved the office order Ex.P3 regarding posting of the accused. Other witnesses are of formal nature and need not be discussed in detail.
5. When the entire prosecution evidence emerging against the accused was put to him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, therein the defence version taken by the accused, is as under:
"I am innocent and have been falsely implicated by the complainant. Baldev Singh came to me on 16.9.99 in Police Station and asked me to hush up the matter relating to accident but I refused to do so as the case was already registered. Then Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -5- on 17.9.99 complainant Megh Raj and Baldev Singh came to me again for hushing up the matter to which I refused. Then Megh Raj threatened me that he will see me on 18.9.99. I had already made report on application for Superdari and gave back to Megh Raj and he went away. Then after 5 minutes Vigilance officials rushed to the Police Station and caught hold of me. No recovery was effected from me nor I demanded any illegal gratification. Megh Raj complainant nurtured a grudge against me as I had refused to oblige him in accident case, and due to this in connivance with Vigilance people I was trapped in this false case. When Megh Raj went away after getting report on application, he shook hands with me due to which the colour of the water got pink. Megh Raj and Baldev Singh are professionals and have lodged reports against Police officials and later on furnished affidavits for cancellation of cases."
6. To substantiate his claim, the accused had also examined Raj Pal Mittal, a record keeper in District Court at Patiala to prove that complainant Megh Raj with same set of witnesses such as Narain Dutt had also appeared in another case of 1992 dated 17.5.2001 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, Police Station, Patran, titled "State Vs. Sukhwinder Singh". Yet another witness Constable Gursewak Singh was examined as DW2. He had brought relevant record to prove that yet another FIR No.203 dated 25.5.2001 had been registered on the basis of statement of Baldev Singh who was also a prosecution witness in this case.
7. After appraisal of the evidence and consideration of the circumstances, the trial court had come to a finding that the accused had demanded bribe as a motive for report to be made on the application for Superdari and had found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses worth reliance and had thus, returned findings of conviction against the accused. Order of sentence had followed thereafter.
8. In this appeal, stand of the accused is manifold. The points raised by the accused are as under:
i. Baldev Singh (PW4) and complainant Megh Raj Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -6- (PW5) are habitual complainants. Their conduct is shady. They had been indulging in implicating of public officials and later on had been resiling from their earlier statements. Making reference to the testimony of Raj Pal Mittal (DW1), it has been pleaded that in an earlier instance of Sukhwinder Singh, FIR No.192 dated 17.5.2001 was registered and later, the matter was settled as is clear from Ex.D5;
ii. Devinder Kumar Gupta (PW8), an independent witness has not supported the prosecution case and thus, was declared hostile. He has nowhere proved demand or acceptance of the bribe;
iii. Recovery is not from the accused. It was from the file.
Who placed it there and how the accused could be implicated then, are material facts which have not been proved by the prosecution;
iv. The trial court ignored that investigating officer DSP Bhag Singh (PW9) and complainant Megh Raj (PW5) had shook hands with the accused and thereafter, handwash was made and consequently, it turned to light pink colour but had lost its legal relevance and admissibility;
v. The accused had already made report on the application of Superdari and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to demand the alleged bribe;
vi. Depositions of Baldev Singh (PW4), of complainant (PW5) and of shadow witness Narain Dutt (PW7) suffer from discrepancies and contradictions making these inherently of no legal consequence; and, vii. Sanction order Ex.P13 is invalid and lacks application of mind.
9. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the record.
10. Before rival claims of the appellant-accused viz. a viz. the Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -7- prosecution case are taken up for evaluation in the interface of evidence and attending circumstances, it would be appropriate to take stock of the facts about which there is no dispute.
11. On the side of the prosecution, complainant Megh Raj (PW5), Managing Director of the company (who owned the accidental truck) has Baldev Singh (PW5/A) and Narain Dutt (PW7) as his accountants. Devinder Kumar Gupta (PW8), a teacher is also is in the trap team as an independent witness.
12. One truck of the company had met with an accident on 15.9.1999; FIR was registered on 16.9.1999. Application for release of the truck on Superdari was made on 17.9.1999. Venue is Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh. The appellant-accused was posted as ASI in the said Police Station and was investigating the case. Vigilance office is situated at Patiala. DSP Bhag Singh (PW9), when approached by complainant Megh Raj PW heading the trap team, had come in his official jeep from Patiala to Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh.
13. On the side of the appellant-accused, he was investigating the case and was to make a report on the application of the complainant for release of the truck on Superdari. As per his version, the accused had antagonised complainant Megh Raj for having consistently refused to help him in the matter of investigations in which a truck of the company was involved and sequelly, had even been threatened by the complainant of adverse consequences. It is claimed that he had made report on the application (Ex.P10) for Superdari in routine and there was no occasion for him to demand much less accept the alleged bribe. P.Powder treated currency notes had been found from a file folder, knowledge of which is denied by the accused. Regarding turning of sodium carbonate a transparent solution to pink colour, he explained that while leaving his office after Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -8- getting his report on the application (Ex.P10) for Superdari, complainant Megh Raj had shook hands with him.
14. It may be explained at this stage that any animate or inanimate object coming in contact with P. Powder when later comes in contact with sodium carbonate solution (which is transparent in colour like water) turns such solution to be of light pink colour. Explanation of the accused thus, is that since hands of complainant Megh Raj, at earlier point of time, had come in contact with P. Powder, while shaking hands with the complainant after getting his work done later, complainant Megh Raj had transferred traces of P. Powder from his hands to the hands of the appellant-accused as well.
15. At the outset, it may be mentioned that if this Court goes by the contents of the statement (Ex.P4) of complainant Megh Raj made before the police on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P4/B) was recorded and subsequently the charge had been framed against the accused, the illegal gratification had been demanded by the accused on two counts viz. (i) to release Gurmel Singh driver on bail and (ii) to make a report on the application of Superdari to facilitate release of the truck.
16. When statements of prosecution witnesses are examined in the interface of the statement (Ex.P4) of complainant Megh Raj and the charge sheet against the accused, there is not even a whisper in their statements that release of driver Gurmel Singh was allegedly part of the deal. Even with regard to report to be made on the application of Superdari, contrary versions closely competing with each other have come in their respective statements, which cause a dent in the prosecution case.
17. As per the defence version, complainant party had been pressurising the accused to hush up the matter of accident and in that connection, on 16.9.1999 Baldev Singh (PW5/A) had approached the appellant-accused, who was investigating officer of that case. A day later Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -9- accompanied by complainant Megh Raj, he had again contacted the appellant-accused on 17.9.1999 but the accused had refused to entertain them as the case had already been registered.
18. If the application for release of the truck on Superdari made to the court concerned on 16.9.1999 (Ex.P10) is gone through, it transpires that notwithstanding the fact of registration of FIR No.126 dated 16.9.1999 in the Police Station under Section 279,337 and 427 IPC, identity of the accused had yet not been established. Contents of the application reveal that the FIR was still against some unknown accused.
19. On presentation of the application for release of the truck on Superdari before the court, SDJM, Amloh, the said court had asked for report of SHO, Police Station, Gobindgarh. Report (Ex.PW10/A) making no objection by the police to release of the truck on Superdari is of 18.9.1999. Since identity of the accused has yet not been established, plea of the accused that the complainant party was pressurising him for hushing up the matter, is not to be lightly brushed aside.
20. Accusing finger has throughout been raised against the star witnesses of the prosecution. Record keeper Raj Pal Mittal (DW1) had made his deposition from the record. From his deposition, it becomes evident that FIR No.192 dated 17.5.2001 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act had been registered in Police Station, Patran at the instance of PW Narain Dutt, (the then complainant and employee of the present complainant Megh Raj and now, a shadow witness). On statement (Ex.D1) of the then complainant Narain Dutt made before the Special Judge, Patiala on 6.10.2001, the FIR registered at Police Station, Patran which was against SI Sukhwinder Singh and Constable Buta Khan was cancelled. In addition to statement of complainant Megh Raj, there is affidavit (Ex.D4) of complainant Megh Raj, owner of the company for cancellation of the FIR. Affidavit of Narain Dutt Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -10- is Ex.D5. Acting upon affidavits Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 and statement of Narain Dutt, Special Judge, Patiala vide his order (Ex.D1) of 6.10.2001 had accepted report for cancellation of the FIR against the said police officials.
21. From statement of Constable Gursewak Singh (DW2) of Police Station, Patran, it transpires that FIR No.203 dated 25.5.2001 was registered on the statement (Ex.DW2/A) of Constable Baldev Singh. In this FIR, Megh Raj (now complainant) had been cited as one of the accused. From such conduct of Megh Raj and Narain Dutt PWs, it transpires that during the course of functioning of their company, the raw material used to be brought from Mandi Gobindgarh to the factory premises and to transport iron pipes later to many destinations, the complainant and Narain Dutt and also their team used to put pressure on the police officials to get favours in their business. Registration of the FIRs against the police officials was also part of their strategy to keep the police force at bay so that no hindrance was created by the police in their work of plying of trucks with raw material as also for transportation of finished goods in and out of the State. Contention of the learned defence counsel is that inconvenient police officers used to be their target.
22. During the course of proceedings of this appeal, an application under Section 391 Cr.PC had been filed by the appellant-accused by way of CRM No.11741 of 2009 to produce on record copies of:
(i) FIR No.708 dated 21.10.2001 under Section 20 of Treasure Trove Act, 1878 and Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Patiala;
(ii) FIR No.30 dated 30.6.2006 under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Dirba, District Sangrur; and,
(iii) order dated 19.12.2008 accepting cancellation report in case FIR No.30 dated 30.6.2006 as Annexures A-1 to A-3 Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -11- respectively. On 7.7.2009, this application was ordered to be heard alongwith the main case.
23. During the course of arguments of this appeal, no objection came from the prosecution side for placing these documents on the file to be read in additional evidence of the defence. As such, the application is allowed and the documents, in additional evidence of the appellant-accused are taken on record.
24. FIR No.708 of 21.10.2011 (Annexure A-1) is under Section 20 of the Treasure Trove Act, 1878, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 406 & 409 IPC. It was registered at Police Station, Kotwali Patiala regarding involvement of DSP Bhag Singh who allegedly had accepted illegal gratification of Rs.27,000/- by causing threat to one Pawan Kumar son of Bachan Lal and for suppressing the recovery of a treasure.
25. FIR No.30 dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure A-2) under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC had been registered on the complaint of Narain Dutt, shadow witness of this case. Later on, said complainant Narain Dutt had settled the matter with the accused in the said FIR as per order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure A-3).
26. From this overwhelming evidence produced by the defence, it transpires that complainant Megh Raj (PW5) and shadow witness Narain Dutt (PW7) are habitual complaint makers. In addition credit of DSP Bhag Singh (PW9) who is investigating officer in this case, has also nose-dived and thus is not worthy of reliability. Plea of the defence is that under the aegis of complainant Megh Raj (PW5) and shadow witness Narain Dutt (PW7), DSP Bhag Singh (PW9) had falsely implicated the accused merely to settle score of refusal of the accused for hushing up the matter of accident of their truck.
Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -12-27. Contention of the defence is that complainant Megh Raj (PW5) and shadow witness Narain Dutt (PW7) had been maintaining good relations with the police officials so that they may be of help to them in their carrying of manufacturing and trading activities and if any police officer had been inconvenient to them, they had not been sparing him and had even gone to the extent of involving him in false cases.
28. Referring to statement of Gursewak Singh (DW2), it is claimed that FIR (Ex.DW2/A) under Sections 353, 186, 109, 148 and 149 IPC was registered at the instance of complainant Baldev Singh against present complainant Megh Raj (PW5) as he had been interfering in the discharge of official functions of the police. The FIR (Ex.DW2/A) reveals that Megh Raj alongwith his associates had come in conflict with Government officials when the truck of their company was stopped at the Khanauri tax barrier by the tax officials. Later on, complainant Megh Raj was left out.
29. Learned counsel for the State has contended that merely because credit of the prosecution witnesses viz. complainant Megh Raj (PW5), shadow witness Narain Dutt (PW7) and DSP Bhag Singh (PW9) had come under scanner in some FIRs registered with the police, that would have no impact on the case in hand as the FIR in this case is much earlier in time.
30. Creditworthiness of a person as a witness is not to be confined to a particular point of time. Though this FIR is of 18.9.1990 and statements of complainant Megh Raj (PW5), shadow witness Narain Dutt (PW7) and DSP Bhag Singh (PW9) were recorded on 28.11.2000, 17.7.2001 and 23.4.2002 respectively but conduct and esteem of an individual even prior to and later than, a particular point of time i.e. on 18.9.1990 when the FIR was registered in this case, is also to be seen. When some developments have taken place after registration of the FIR i.e. during the trial or during appellate proceedings, creditworthiness and probative value of such Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -13- witnesses definitely comes under attack and sequelly is considerably shaken.
31. Testimony of complainant Megh Raj (PW5) and his associate Narain Dutt (PW7) has thus been shown to be of no substance. Baldev Singh (PW4) could not have gone against his employer and his master complainant Megh Raj and rather was to depose in tune with him. Independent witness Devinder Kumar Gupta (PW8), a teacher was declared hostile and his testimony has brought great set back to the prosecution. He has deposed neither of demand nor of acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. As per the prosecution version, he had accompanied the police party and had gone inside the room of the accused with the investigating officer. His statement in its relevant portion is as under:
"The accused was enquired about the tainted currency notes. However, the accused expressed his ignorance in this regard. DSP again asked the accused to hand over the currency notes. Accused did not produce the currency notes from the file Ex.PW7/A in my presence. However, the tainted currency notes were recovered and produced before me by DSP for comparison of their number."
32. From this part of his statement, it transpires that he nowhere incriminates the accused. This witness was declared hostile and despite having been cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor at length, nothing came out of him to sustain and support the prosecution version. He has also stated that when DSP Bhag Singh had introduced himself to the accused, he had shaken hands with him.
33. Turning of sodium carbonate solution into pink is explained by the defence from the facts of shaking of hands by DSP Bhag Singh with the accused as also by shaking of hands by complainant Megh Raj with the accused when he had taken his application of Superdari (Ex.P10) with report (Ex.P10/A) of the accused. It must be remembered that hands of the complainant had already been smeared with P. Powder as he had handed Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -14- currency notes treated with P.Powder. Traces of said P. Powder were automatically transferred to the hands of the accused, when complainant as also the investigating officer, had shaken hands with the accused at different times. Moreover, application for Superdari (Ex.P10) reveals that report (Ex.P10/A) regarding Superdari was already there.
34. Learned defence counsel has urged that when the witnesses of the prosecution are not trustworthy, finding of conviction against the appellant-accused cannot stand. Support has been sought from Darshan Lal Versus Delhi Administration 1974 AIR (SC) 218. Discussing value of trap witnesses in bribery cases, it was emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there should be independent and trustworthy corroboration of evidence of trap witnesses. Reiterating this proposition of law in yet another judgment reported as Sat Paul Versus Delhi Administration (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 727, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that persons with shady and questionable characteristics cannot as a general rule, be taken on their word that they were subject to demand of bribe or extortion by the police. It was further held that corroboration of interested witnesses from independent sources is essential where witnesses have poor moral fibre with bad antecedents and have a motive to remove the accused from their way. In this authority, corroboration by another trap witness, though a police officer, was not taken to be sufficient.
35. The authority Jyoti Ram Versus State of Haryana 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 778 (P&H) cited by the prosecution is that mere non- joining of independent witness ipso facto was no ground to discard the prosecution case. There is no dispute about this law and there cannot be any. However, in the present case, independent witness was joined but has not supported the prosecution case. This factor by itself is of great importance because consistent stand of the defence is that he has been falsely implicated by the complainant and his associates as he being the investigating officer, Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -15- had refused to oblige them to hush up the matter of accident of their truck and thus, testimony of complainant Megh Raj (PW5), of Narain Dutt (PW7) and of DSP Bhag Singh (PW9) in absence of testimony of any witness having been named to witness the trap by any senior officer like District Magistrate or the like, was of no legal value. Devinder Kumar (PW8) cited as an independent witness has lent no support to the prosecution case; it has resulted in substantial crumbling of the prosecution case.
36. The basic features of any trap case are demand of bribe, its acceptance and later its recovery from the accused. There needs to be clear and transparent evidence regarding demand of bribe and of acceptance of money as bribe thereafter. In Harbans Singh Versus State of Punjab 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 892 (P&H), it was held that merely because the amount was placed in the drawer of the appellant would not mean that the same was demanded or accepted by the police. It was further held that when there are either no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution or if there are serious discrepancies in the statement of the complainant who himself had been involved as a witness in few more cases, the prosecution case is of no reliance.
37. In somewhat similar circumstances in M.K. Harshan Versus State of Kerala AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2178, when money was recovered from drawer of the accused and there was evidence that the accused did not touch the currency notes, plea of the accused that tainted money was planted in a drawer without his knowledge, was held to be logical and probable. Accused was given the benefit of doubt. In yet another case titled Ganapathi Sanya Naik Versus State of Karnataka 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 184 (Supreme Court) where tainted currency notes were recovered from beneath the office files placed on table of the accused, defence version that no demand was made and currency notes were surreptitiously put on the table while the appellant was otherwise engaged in some other activity, Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -16- defence version was held to be plausible and accused was acquitted.
38. In Harnek Singh Versus State of Punjab 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 403 (P&H) cited by the defence, facts are similar to a great extent. In the cited authority, a relation of complainant had been chosen to act as a shadow witness. In the present case, shadow witness is a whole time employee of the complainant. In the cited authority, no official witness had been joined for the purpose of conducting search and no valid reason for the same was given. Similar is the position in this case. Neither any information was given to any senior officer of the police or to the District Magistrate and no person was got deputed by making application to the District Magistrate for joining the investigations as an independent witness. In addition, as is the case of the aforecited authority, currency notes were not recovered from the person of the accused, but were lying in the files.
39. Truck and driver of the complainant were involved in an accident and appellant-accused of this case was the investigating officer, enquiring into such criminal case registered with regard to motor vehicular accident allegedly caused by truck of the complainant Megh Raj. Allegations are that complainant party was pressurising the investigating officer i.e. the accused hard for settling the matter whereas he had disclosed that FIR had already been registered and cancellation was not possible. Such blunt approach of the investigating officer had been taken as an insult resulting in this FIR. Report Ex.P10/A on the application Ex.P10 had already been made and application was delivered to the complainant and thus, there was no chance with the complainant to give bribe to the accused. Had it been pursuant to some already settled plan, there should not have been no hesitation on the part of complainant Megh Raj to hand over the bribe amount to the accused.
40. Support has been sought from yet another authority reported as Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -17- Anand Parkash Versus State of Haryana 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 335 (P&H) wherein it was held that positive result of P. Powder test is not enough to establish guilt of the accused; same is the position in the present case. The prosecution witnesses have not been corroborated by independent witness and even those witnesses of the prosecution viz. complainant Megh Raj (PW5) and his associate Narain Dutt (PW7), a shadow witness and his employee Baldev Singh (PW5/A) have not been found to be of credit. In the cited authority, recovery had not been effected from the accused but had been effected from an almirah. It was held that mere recovery of the amount itself is also not sufficient for conviction when the substantive evidence is not reliable. There is no witness to demand of bribe except for the complainant who is unworthy of reliance. This authority on all counts thus supports the defence.
41. In the last, sanction order Ex.P13 has been questioned in its legality. Merely because sanctioning authority himself has not entered the witness box, ipso facto is no ground to castigate the sanction order particularly when there is complete legal compliance. In statement of ASI Baldev Singh PW5 who was Reader to SSP, Sangrur, there is nothing that sanction order had not been passed by the competent authority without going through the relevant record. Even otherwise, no suggestion at all was put to this witness that sanction order Ex.P13 was not in order or had been passed by the competent authority without any application of mind. This aspect thus does not dilute the prosecution case.
Conclusion
42. The version of the appellant-accused supported by defence evidence on record has shaken the prosecution case, which was unfolded by complainant Megh Raj (PW5), shadow witness Narain Dutt (PW7), recovery witness Baldev Singh (PW5) and investigating officer DSP Bhag Singh Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-797-SB of 2003 -18- (PW9), making it seriously doubtful, thus, requiring finding of guilt against the appellant-accused to be reversed.
43. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably been failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, giving benefit of doubt to the accused, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 8.4.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib are set aside. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. His bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. The case property, if any, be dealt with as per rules.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge March 26th , 2014 'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Yag Dutt 2014.04.01 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document