Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hari Chand vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision:March 18,2013
Hari Chand ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Parmod Chauhan,Advocate
for the appellant
Mr.G.S.Khandebad, Deputy Advocate
General,Punjab
**
Sabina, J.
Appellant had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') in FIR No. 39, dated 23.12.2005 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Phase No.1, Punjab at Mohali. The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 02.03.2010 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that a case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ,1860 (`IPC' for short) was registered against the complainant -Jagsir Singh at Police Station Malout. Although, the case was initially registered against Sukchain Singh and others but lateron the involvement of the complainant also Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 figured in the said case. Challan was presented against the complainant and others. Appellant was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Police Station Malout. Appellant demanded `5000/- from the complainant as bribe for helping him in the criminal case. The matter was settled at ` 3000/-. Complainant approached the Vigilance Authority on 23.12.2005.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, First Information Report in question was registered against the appellant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police- Jagdish Mittal recorded the statement of the complainant. The complainant handed over five currency notes in the denomination of `500/- each and five currency notes in the denomination of `100/- each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who in turn returned the same to the complainant after application of Phenolphthalein powder (`P.Powder' for short).. Complainant was directed to hand over the currency notes to the appellant on demand. Sakander Singh was deputed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to give a signal to the raiding party after the currency notes were accepted by the appellant on demand. Thereafter Sukhdarshan Singh and Gurcharan Singh were joined as official witnesses. The Deputy Superintendent of Polcie along with raiding party left for the raid.
Complainant alongwith shadow witness met the appellant at the appointed place. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. Appellant kept
the tainted currency notes in the front pocket of his shirt. On receipt of a signal from the shadow witness, the remaining raiding party Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 reached the spot. Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced himself to the appellant. Thereafter, when the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from right shirt pocket of the appellant. The numbers of the said currency notes were got tallied from the official witnesses which were found identical with the numbers mentioned in the memo already prepared. Currency notes were taken in possession. Thereafter, when the right shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. After completion of investigation challan was presented against the appellant.
During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case.
Appellant, when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure had prayed as under:-
" I am innocent. I never demanded any bribe nor accepted the same from the complainant. Challan of the complaint had already been presented in the court at Malout before registration of the present FIR against me. There was no act for the complainant to come to me for favour given to him as challan had already been presented in the court and it was the duty of the court to hear his case. He was annoyed that I had formally arrested him in the case pending against him u/s 420 IPC bearing FIR No. 261 dated 9.9.2005 P.S.S.Malout."Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M) 4
Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence . Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had no occasion to demand bribe from the complainant. Appellant had accepted the bail bonds furnished by the complainant on 02.11.2005. Appellant had presented the challan on 14.12.2005. Appellant was neither the investigating officer in the FIR registered against the complainant nor he had been cited as a witness in the said case. Hence, the appellant could not help the complainant in any manner and had no reason to demand bribe from the complainant.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The complainant as well as the other material witnesses had duly proved the prosecution case. Appellant was posted in Police Station Sadar Malout where the FIR had been registered against the complainant with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
In the present case, admittedly, the FIR was registered against the complainant with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Sadar Malout. Appellant was posted in the said Police Station as Assistant Sub Inspector at the relevant time. Admittedly, appellant was not the Investigating Officer in the case wherein FIR had been registered against the complainant. Further, appellant had also not been cited as a witness in the case registered against the complainant nor had investigated the said case at any stage. Appellant had rather Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M) 5 accepted the bail bonds furnished by the complainant on 02.11.2005 and had formally presented the challan on 14.12.2005. Since the appellant had already presented the challan against the complainant on 14.12.2005 in the FIR registered against him, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand bribe from the complainant on 23.12.2005 as on the said date nothing remained to be done by the appellant. Appellant could have accepted bribe from the complainant if he had any further connection with the FIR registered against the complainant. Appellant was neither a witness in the FIR registered against the complainant nor had investigated in the said case. Thus, it can be safely assumed that the appellant had no occasion to demand bribe from the complainant.
Although in the present case, complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW1 and shadow witness, while appearing in the witness box as PW2 and the official witness Gurcharan Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW3 and Gurdarshan Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW4, have deposed as per prosecution case but the prosecution story is not free from any doubt PW3 Gurcharan Singh had supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief but his cross- examination also renders the prosecution case doubtful. The said witness has stated, in his cross-examination, that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had told him that the accused had been arrested and,thereafter, he had been called in School on mobile phone by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. When he reached the school along with Sukhdarshan Singh, appellant was already in Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M) 6 the custody of the vigilance officials. Thereafter, the entire writing work was done in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda. All the documents had been prepared in his absence but his signatures had been taken on the same later on.
Since in the present case, the appellant had already presented the challan against the complainant in the FIR registered against him and had no further connection in the said case, therefore, possibility that the appellant might have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. Rather the prosecution case is rendered doubtful. It is a settled proposition of law that when-ever doubt occurs in a prosecution case, the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty.
Thus, in the present case, appellant is entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt as the prosecution had been unable to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 02.03.2009 are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 18, 2013 arya Criminal Appeal No. 683-SB of 2010 (O&M) 7