Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Chand Chhabra vs State Of Haryana on 24 September, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 24.9.2010
Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002
Mehar Chand Chhabra
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.420-SB of 2002
M.P.Jindal
......Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Bipin Ghai,Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate,
for the appellant in CRA No.416-SB of 2002.
Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate,
for the appellant in CRA No.420-SB of 2002.
Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate,
for CBI.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this judgment, CRA Nos.416-SB of 2002 and 420- SB of 2002 will be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same judgment.
Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 2
Appellants were tried for an offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) read with Section 7,13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). Vide judgment dated 6.3.2002, they were held guilty for the said offence and were convicted thereunder by the Special Judge, Ambala. Vide order of the even date, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each with a fine of Rs.3,000/- each under Section 7 of the Act; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 120-B IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present appeals.
Learned counsel for appellant M.P.Jindal has submitted that there was no evidence against the appellant qua commission of the alleged offence. Rather the complainant had deposed that no demand of money had been made by appellant M.P.Jindal.
Learned senior counsel for appellant Mehar Chand Chhabra, on the other hand, has deposed that the case of the prosecution was liable to fail as the complainant was not a reliable witness. The complainant had taken different stands in the FIR and while appearing in the witness box, the other material prosecution witnesses Sujata Devi, Mukesh Kumar and Ram Bilas Gulia had not Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 3 supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the sole testimony of complainant Palu Ram could not be relied upon. The prosecution case suffered from material discrepancies. It was not believable that a person would demand and accept bribe and get the bribe money deposited in his account. PW-1 Palu Ram, in his cross- examination, had admitted his signatures on Ex.D-1 dated 21.8.1998. This showed that the bills were presented by the complainant on 21.8.1998 i.e. the date of raid. Hence, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand bribe earlier to that date.
The present case was set in motion on a complaint made by PW-1 Palu Ram. PW-1 Palu Ram has deposed that a loan of Rs.20,000/- each was sanctioned in favour of his wife and brother. The wife and brother of the witness had been interviewed by the bank officials. The manager of the bank demanded Rs.4,000/- from him for release of the first instalment. Ultimately the matter was settled at Rs.3,000/-. He had paid Rs.1,000/- to the manager for release of the first instalment and two drafts of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.12,000/- were handed over to him. When he approached the manager for release of the second instalment, the manager raised a demand of Rs.2,000/- from him. The other accused had not made any demand from him in this regard. He moved a complaint in this regard to the office of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short). Thereafter, he gave 20 currency notes of Rs.100/- each and the same were returned back to him after application of phenolphthalein Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 4 powder (P-Powder for short). The witness was also shown the demonstration qua working of the P-Powder. Thereafter, the complainant went to the bank along with his wife, brother and Ram Bilas Gulia. The manager asked him if he had brought the amount and on his affirmation, the manager asked the witness to hand over the money to Mr.Jindal, cashier, to be deposited in the account of the manager. He gave Rs.2,000/- to Mr.Jindal. Mr.Jindal enquired from the manager as to what was to be done with Rs.2,000/- and the manager told Mr.Jindal to deposit the same in his account (Manager's account). Thereafter, the manager completed the formalities for handing over the draft. After payment, Mr.Gulia, shadow witness, went outside the bank and gave signal to the raiding party. Thereafter the officials of CBI entered the bank and hands of Mr.Jindal were washed in a solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. The currency notes were recovered by the CBI officials from the cash box. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied by the officials.
PW-2 Ram Bilas Gulia did not support the prosecution case qua demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellants.
PW-3 V.K.Sood deposed that on receipt of signal from the shadow witness, they entered the bank. The shadow witness told them that first of all the complainant had met Mr. Chhabra, who in turn had directed the complainant to hand over the money to the cashier and complainant did so accordingly. Either the complainant Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 5 or the shadow witness stated that the money had been placed in cash counter by the cashier. Thereafter, when the hands of Mr.Jindal were washed in a solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. The currency notes were given to him and he tallied the numbers of the same. The pink coloured solution was put in a nip and was sealed.
PW-7 Mukesh Kumar and PW-8 Sujata Devi did not support the prosecution case. Thus the prosecution case rests on the testimony of PW-1 Palu Ram and PW-3 V.K.Sood.
In order to establish its case, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused had demanded bribe money from the complainant and further that the said bribe money was accepted by the accused and still further that the said bribe money was recovered from the accused by the raiding party.
In the present case, challan was presented against Manager M.C.Chhabra and cashier M.P.Jindal. Let us examine the prosecution evidence qua the involvement of both the said accused who have been convicted by the trial Court for an offence under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7,13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act.
First of all, let us take the case of appellant M.P.Jindal. So far as the said appellant is concerned, it is a case of no evidence against him. PW-1 Palu Ram has categorically deposed that no demand of bribe money was made from him by cashier M.P.Jindal. Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 6 So far as the shadow witness Ram Bilas Gulia, Sujata Devi and Mukesh Kumar are concerned, they have not supported the prosecution case. Although the hand wash solution qua appellant M.P.Jindal turned pink but PW-1 has explained in his cross- examination that the tainted currency notes were handed over to the cashier at the instance of Manager M.C.Chhabra. This witness has further explained that Manager M.C.Chhabra had directed the cashier M.P.Jindal to deposit the amount in his account. The money in question was also recovered from the cash box in which cash was kept by the cashier. From this, it is evident that the cashier had neither demanded money nor had accepted the same on his own behalf. Although recovery of the cash of the tainted money was made from the cash box of appellant M.P.Jindal but from the testimony of PW-1, it is evident that the same had been kept in the cash box on behalf of appellant M.C.Chhabra. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence qua appellant M.P.Jindal is liable to be set aside.
So far as the case of appellant Manager M.C.Chhabra is concerned, the same is on a different footing. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box, has categorically deposed that the bribe money was demanded from him by appellant M.C.Chhabra. The complainant has further stated that appellant M.C.Chhabra had also visited him in his house with regard to the demand of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, he had made a complaint to the CBI qua the Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 7 demand of bribe money made by appellant M.C.Chhabra. The complainant has also deposed that on the day of raid, he had met the manager in the bank and the manager had asked him if he had brought the amount in question. When the complainant answered in the affirmative, the manager told the complainant to hand over the amount to cashier M.P.Jindal and deposit the same in his (Manager's) account. Thereafter, the complainant gave Rs.2,000/- to the cashier M.P.Jindal and also told him that the Manager had directed that the said amount be deposited in his (Manager's) account. The cashier again inquired from the Manager as to what was to be done with Rs.2,000/- and the Manager directed the cashier to deposit the amount in his (Manager's ) account. Thus, the cashier had dealt with the tainted currency notes, but had done so on behalf of the Manager. This explains as to why the hand wash solution of the cashier turned pink and when the hands of the manager were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution did not turn pink. The Manager had himself not handled the tainted currency notes but had asked the cashier to deposit the tainted currency notes in his account after the same were handed over by the complainant to the cashier. Although the shadow witness Ram Bilas Gulia, Sujata Devi and Mukesh Kumar have not supported the prosecution case but the statement of the complainant qua the involvement of appellant M.C.Chhabra in the alleged offence inspires confidence. PW-2 V.K.Sood is an independent witness and he has Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 8 also corroborated the statement of the complainant. In his cross- examination, he deposed that when Mr.Jindal was questioned qua acceptance of the tainted currency notes, Mr.Jinal had told the police party that he had asked the Manager as to what was to be done with the amount and the Manager had told him that he should accept the amount and he (Manager) would send the vouchers. In his examination-in-chief also the said witness had deposed that M.P.Jindal had stated that he had accepted the money on the direction of the Branch Manager.
The cheques in question were to be issued by the Branch Manager qua the second instalments to Sujata Devi and Mukesh Kumar. From the statement of PW-5 Surinder Kumar Yadav, it is evident that the files in question were being dealt with by appellant M.C.Chhabra.
Although in the present case, the complainant had initially stated in the complaint that both the appellants had demanded bribe from him but while coming in the witness box, the complainant has deposed qua demand and acceptance of bribe by appellant M.C.Chhabra. The fact that the complainant has not deposed qua demand of bribe by appellant M.P.Jindal while appearing in the witness box is no ground to disbelieve the complainant qua involvement of appellant M.C.Chhabra in the alleged crime. The wife of the complainant had sought loan for running a bangle store, whereas, the brother of the complainant, Mukesh Kumar, had sought Criminal Appeal No.416-SB of 2002 9 loan for purchasing sewing machines for tailoring shop. The loan was sanctioned by the bank officials but however, the instalments were not released to the loanees. As per the PW-1, he had paid Rs.1,000/- to appellant M.C.Chhabra for release of first instalment. At the time of release of second instalment, appellant M.C.Chhabra demanded Rs.2,000/- and since the complainant did not want to pay the said amount he set the criminal law in motion by approaching the vigilance authorities. It is unfortunate that the loanees, who had been sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each and the said amount was also to be paid in instalments, the appellant instead of helping the loanees, who are poor persons, had raised a demand of bribe. Moreover, the loanees had to repay the loan amount by instalments. The prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against appellant M.C.Chhabra.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence qua appellant M.P.Jindal is set aside and thus, the appeal filed by appellant M.P.Jindal is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
The appeal filed by appellant M.C.Chhabra is dismissed. The conviction and sentence, awarded by the trial Court, qua appellant M.C.Chhabra are upheld.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 24, 2010 anita