Punjab-Haryana High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Darshan Pal Singh & Anr on 10 October, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.330-MA of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.330-MA of 2009
Date of Decision:-10.10.2012
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Petitioner
Versus
Darshan Pal Singh & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition for leave to appeal and emanating from the record, are that, initially, a criminal case was registered against the respondents-accused, vide FIR, bearing No.RC-37(A)/2002-CHG dated 29.8.2002, for the commission of offence punishable under section 13 (1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for brevity "the CBI").
2. After the trial of the case, the Special Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 2.1.2009.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the CBI preferred the present petition for CRM No.330-MA of 2009 2 leave to appeal, to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal, invoking the provisions of section 378(3) Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for CBI that since there was sufficient evidence on record, so, the Special Judge committed a legal mistake in acquitting the respondents-accused, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record, that having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration insufficiency, the material contradictions & inherent improbabilities, in the evidence of prosecution, the Special Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 2.1.2009, which, in substance, is as under :-
"56. A perusal of the above would show that PW-1 has come out with different versions in single statement. In view of the law laid down in Surajmal Versus State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408, testimony of such a witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on the evidence of such a witness. Despite changing colour at different stages of examination, PW-1 made it clear that apart from him and Balmiki, three other vendors had contributed and then Rs.700/- were given to accused Shalender Pandey and this much was recovered from the latter. PW-4 has, to some extent, corroborated the statement of PW-1 by saying that after Shalender Pandey (A-2) was taken to CBI Office, Rs.700/- were recovered from him in respect of which separate memo was prepared. The Trap Officer and the Investigating Officer, however, CRM No.330-MA of 2009 3 came out with evasive denial by saying that they did not remember if any money other than Rs.400/- was recovered from Shalender Pandey (A-2). Although, the purport of the statement of PW-4 is that Rs.700/- which were recovered during personal search of accused Shalender Pandey in the CBI office were separate from Rs.400/- which were recovered on the spot yet, the prosecution had to explain the recovery of Rs.700/-. If any such amount was recovered, memo must have been prepared. Even if, the Trap Officer and the Investigating Officer were not able to recollect from memory, the memo could have been produced. The fact remains that no such memo has been placed on record. This casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution version. The reason for not showing the recovery of Rs.700/- has not been explained. Merely because, the witnesses have stated that they did not see accused Shalender Pandey taking money from any other phariwala, it does not mean what PW-1 has stated is false. Even otherwise, it is not the case that other phariwalas had already paid hafta and it was only PW-1 and PW-2 who were yet to pay. Had that been the case, the visit of accused Shalender Pandey to the phari of PW-2 only would have been understandable but if other phariwalas had also to pay, the question arises as to why Shalender Pandey (A-2) straightway came to the phari of PW-2. It is not the case of the prosecution that phari of PW-2 was on one corner from where Shalender Pandey (A-2) started effecting recovery of hafta. Therefore, when PW-1 says that apart from him and PW-2, three other phariwalas had also contributed and paid Rs.700/- to Shalender Pandey (A-2), he cannot be brushed aside and if Rs.700/- were given to Shalender Pandey (A-2), question arises as to why Rs.400/- only were recovered from his hand on being trapped.
62. In view of the discussion foregoing, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that accused Darshan Pal Singh had been collecting hafta through accused Shalender Pandey from the vendors including the complainants for allowing them to run their pharis. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that on 27.08.2002, Darshan Pal Singh, accused came to the pharis of the complainants with accused Shalender Pandey and asked the complainant to hand over hafta to Shalender Pandey (A-2). Resultantly, it is doubtful if Shalender Pandey (A-2) accepted hafta from the complainants on behalf of Darshan Pal Singh (A-
1). All the points for determination are, thus, answered in favour of the CRM No.330-MA of 2009 4 accused and against the prosecution and as a result thereof, the accused are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them."
7. The learned counsel for CBI did not point out any reason/grounds, much less cogent, to impugn the impugned judgment of acquittal.
8. Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction under Section 378(3) Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed as such.
10.10.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No