Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. vs Sukhdev Singh Rana on 3 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ1136
Author: K.C. Sood
Bench: K.C. Sood
JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J.
1. This State appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Special Judge, Chamba dated February 21, 2003.
2. It appears, respondent Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", was tried by the learned Special Judge, Chamba under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("Act" for short) and was acquitted by the impugned judgment.
Prosecution case :
3. Accused Sukhdev Singh was posted as Block Development Officer, Mehla in the District of Chamba in the year 1997. Chain Lal Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gagla was awarded two works by the Block Development Officer, Mehla, i.e. :
(a) Construction of Government Primary School, Gagla and
(b) Construction of School at Kuran, in Gram Panchayat, Gagla.
Complainant executed both the works but he was not released final payment(s) of the two works. Rupees 14,000/- were due in respect of the work of construction of School building and rupees 20,400/- in respect of the construction of Kuhal. Complainant Chain Lal met the accused for the release of the amount due to him. Accused demanded rupees 2000/- as illegal gratification for releasing the amount to the complainant. On July 21, 1997, he visited the accused in his office when accused demanded rupees 2000/- for releasing both the payments. The complainant then told the accused that he has no money to pay him and asked him to release the payment of one of the works so that he is able to pay of rupees 2000/- to him and second instalment may be released to him after he had paid rupees 2000/-, as illegal gratification, to him. On this understanding, accused released payment, i.e. last instalment (in respect of construction of kuhal) amounting to rupees 20,400/- on September 22, 1997 and directed him to visit his office on September 25, 1997 along with bribe money of rupees 2000/- so that the cheque of rupees 14,000/- in respect of the construction of School is released to him. The complainant informed his friend Karan Singh on September 25, 1997 about the demand made by the accused. Both of them came to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption, Chamba and informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sukhdev Sharma (P.W. 12) about the demand of illegal gratification by the accused. On the complaint made by Chain Lal complainant, a formal FIR (Ex. P.W. 1/A) was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A trap was organized. The complainant handed over 20 currency notes each of rupees 100/- denomination to be used as trap money. The number(s) of the currency notes, thereafter, were noted on the Memo Exhibit P.W. 1/C and thereafter currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The treated currency notes were put inside the front pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The complainant was directed to give these currency notes to the accused on the demand which may be made by him. Deputy Superintendent of Police constituted a raiding party which included, apart from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karam Singh as shadow witness, Mr. R. S. Sharma, Tehsildar Chamba, Som Raj Sub-Inspector, Ranjit Singh Head Constable, Rakesh Kumar and Syed Mohammad constables. The complainant and shadow witness were directed to go to the office of the accused with the direction that on demand made by the accused, the complainant shall hand over the treated notes to the accused. Karam Singh was directed that after the currency notes are handed over to the accused, he would give a signal by moving his right hand around his face on which the Police raiding party would reach the accused. The other members of the raiding party followed in a private vehicle.
4. Complainant met the accused in his office but accused asked him to meet him at his residence between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. At about 1.30 p.m., the complainant along with Karam Singh went to the house of the accused. The other members of the raiding party concealed themselves in the adjoining building in which Patwarkhana was located. Complainant and Karam Singh went inside the house of the accused but accused asked Karam Singh to go out of the house. Karam Singh then went out and stood near the gate of the house. The complainant told the accused that he had brought the money and handed over treated currency notes to the accused, Complainant then came out of the residence and gave signal to Karam Singh who, in turn, signalled the trap party. The raiding party immediately reached the house of the accused. Accused was caught hold from the wrist by the Police Officers. A 'chirmichi' was arranged in which solution of Sodium carbonate powder was added. The hands of the accused were washed in the water. The water turned pink. A sample of this water was taken and sealed. The accused was asked about the money he had received from the complainant, Accused stated that he had put the money below the bed in the adjoining room. Currency notes were recovered from the adjoining room. The number of the currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in the memorandum. The currency notes were sealed in an envelope and recovery memo was prepared.
5. Learned Special Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused.
6. Heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Kapil Dev Sood learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General was that the evidence produced by the prosecution has not been properly appreciated.
8. Mr. Kapil Dev Sood, learned counsel for the respondent contends that neither the demand of illegal gratification nor its acceptance is proved by any acceptable evidence.
Section 13(1) of the Act reads :
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant :-- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct.--
(a) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7; or
(b) If he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) If he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; pr
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation :-- For the purpose of this section, "known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
9. A reading of this section shows that public servant commits some misconduct under Section 13(1) (a) of the Act if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act reads :
"7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or for Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in Clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanations :-- (a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) "Gratification". The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
(c) "Legal remuneration". The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organization, which he serves, to accept.
(d) "A motive or rewards for doing". A person who receives a gratification as a motive or rewards for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Whether a public servant includes a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section."
10. A bare perusal of Section 7 shows that if a public servant accepts any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or for forbearing or abstain from doing any official act in spite of his official obligation then he is liable to be punished with imprisonment which is not to be less than six months but which may extend to five years and also to pay fine.
11. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused made demand of rupees 2000/-as illegal gratification for releasing the last instalment of rupees 14,000/~ to the complainant pertaining to the construction of School building and accepted rupees 2000/-in currency notes of rupees 100/- denomination as illegal gratification. The defence of. the accused is that he has falsely been implicated. The complainant wanted certain favours like allotment of more works to him and the complainant was facing vigilance inquiry in which accused was asked to submit the records of the works. The complainant was pressurizing the accused not to hand over the records to which the accused refused to comply. The complainant made a complaint to the local MLA against the accused. It was for this reason that accused has been implicated in a false case. It is the defence of the accused from the very beginning that so far the execution of the work regarding the school building is concerned, he was not aware if the construction was completed but no cheque was lying in his office to be released to the complainant.
12. It is noticed that for reasons unfathomable, the shadow witness Karam Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. Shri R. S. Sharma, Tehsildar Chamba (P.W. 3) does not say a word about the accused having demanded or accepted the illegal gratification. In fact, there is no evidence on record to show that accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of rupees 2000/- except the self-serving statement of the complainant who was highly interested witness.
13. A perusal of Section 13(1) (a) shows that the prosecution is obliged to prove that accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or agreed to obtain any gratification as motive or rewards as contemplated under S. 7 of the Act. It was, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused accepted or obtained Rs. 2000/- from the complainant for releasing the final instalment of Rs. 14,000/- in respect of the works of the School executed by the complainant. There is no evidence to this effect.
14. It is the evidence of complainant Chain Lal (P.W. 1) that he went inside the room of the accused along with Karam Singh. The accused asked Karam Singh to go out. Karam Singh left the room but remained standing near the gate of the house. He told the accused that he had brought the money and handed over the currency notes to the accused. He himself came out of the room and gave signal to Karam Singh, the shadow witness, who in turn, gave signal to the trap party. In the own words of Chain Lal, "I went inside the quarter of the accused along with Karam Singh, but, the accused, asked Karam Singh to go out of his quarter. Then Karam Singh remained standing near the gate of the house. Then I said to the accused that I had brought the money. I handed over the currency notes to the accused and myself came out of the quarter and gave a signal to Karam Singh. The shadow witness Karam Singh gave a signal to the trap party who were hiding themselves in the nearby patwarkhana. The police party came into action. The accused was caught from the wrist/hands".
15. Karam Singh, the shadow witness, as noticed earlier, has not been examined by the prosecution. He at least could have stated about any demand of illegal gratification made by the accused if such demand at all was made. Thus, there is no acceptable evidence on record regarding the demand of the bribe money by the accused.
16. It is now well-settled that the prosecution is obliged to prove, in order to secure conviction, that accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. The Apex Court, in C. K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt. of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477 : (1997 Cri LJ 739) interpreting the expression "obtain" held that prosecution has to prove that the accused "obtained" the valuable things or pecuniary advantage without the aid of the statutory presumption. "Obtain" means to secure or gain (something) as the result of request or effort. Their Lordships observed (para 12) :
"In case of obtainment the initiative vests in the person who receives and in that context a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act unlike an offence under Section 161,_IPC, which, as noticed above, can be, established by proof of either "acceptance" or "obtainment".
(Emphasis given).
17. In Babu Lal Bajpai v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1538 : (1994 Cri LJ 1383) accused was prosecuted for an offence under Section 5(2) read with Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (old) read with Section 161, I.P.C. for allegedly having accepted an amount of Rs. 75/- as a bribe for sanctioning the bills of the complainant-contractor. A trap in that case was laid. The accused was caught in the act of accepting of Rs. 75/- which were paid by the complainant as bribe to him. At the trial, no independent witness, except the Magistrate who had accompanied raiding party, was examined. The trial Court taking into consideration version of the accused that complainant tried to thrust money into his pocket acquitted the accused. The High Court in appeal reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused. The matter was carried to the Apex Court. In this background their Lordships held (Para 6) :
"The case of the accused is that the complainant had tried to thrust the money in his pocket and he had resisted the said attempt, and thrown down the money on the floor. This version of the accused has been supported by the prosecution witness Raghubir Singh who is the adjacent shopkeeper and in whose shop the testing of ultraviolet rays on the currency notes was made. Since he was aware of what was going to happen he had naturally moved near the shop of the trap. According to this witness he was standing outside the said shop and had heard the conversion inside the shop where the trap was laid. There is no reason why this witness who is a stranger both to the prosecution as well as to the accused would support the version of the accused, as stated above, if that was not the true version. The trial Court has also relied upon, and according us rightly, this version of the said prosecution witness. These are two of the most important reasons given by, the trial Court for acquitting the accused. The High Court has ignored these reasons and has tried to substitute its own finding which unfortunately is based on surmises. We are, therefore, more than satisfied that this was not a case where any interference with the finding of the trial Court was called for. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside and the appellant-accused should be acquitted of both the charges".
18. The question which arises for consideration is whether the accused raised demand and accepted 20 currency notes from the complainant as bribe. There is not a word in evidence on this aspect. Even the complainant, in his half hearted statement, does not say a word about the demand having been made by the accused. What he states is that he told the accused that he had brought the money and handed over the same to the accused. Not a whisper about the demand. The complainant indeed is not supported by any other evidence. The currency notes were found and recovered underneath the bed. It is the evidence of the complainant that the accused went to the toilet and he kept on sitting in the room after he handed over the currency notes in question to the accused. In cross-examination, the complainant states thus : "When I entered the quarter of the accused, I shook my hand with the BDO/accused and thereafter he went to the bathroom and I was asked to sit in the room". It is difficult to say that accused accepted the money which was offered by the complainant in the absence of any corroborative evidence.
19. In Meena (Smt.) W/o Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21 : (2000 Cri LJ 2273), the currency notes in question were not recovered from the person of the accused, but when the trap party arrived the currency notes were found on the pad on the table and were taken into possession from that place. Question arose whether the accused accepted it and placed it on the table or the currency notes fell on the pad of the table in the process of the appellant refusing to receive it by pushing away the hands of the complainant when the currency notes were attempted to be thrusted into the hands of the accused. PW-2 one of the Panch witness, who accompanied PW-1 as a shadow witness, did not support the prosecution case. The other panch witness who gave the signal was not examined at the trial. In this context, it was observed by their Lordships (Para 9) :
"Law has always favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness' to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also".
Their Lordships further observed in para-11 of the judgment (Para 10 of Cri LJ),:
"Mere recovery of the currency note be Rs. 20 demoniation and that too lying_ on the pad on the table by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe, in the peculiar circumstances of this case which lend also credence to the case of the appellant that it fell on the table in the process of the appellant pushing it away with her hands when attempted to be thrust into her hands by PW1. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that the appellant could have also comes into contact with the currency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be considered to be of any relevance to prove that the appellant really accepted the bribe amount."
(Emphasis given).
20. Thus, in the absence of any evidence as to what transpired between the complainant and the accused inside the residential room of the complainant, it is difficult to conclude that bribe of Rupees 2000/- was demanded and accepted by the accused. There is no credible evidence from which it may be inferred that a demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused and accepted the same.
21. This apart, the evidence led by the prosecution is unreliable and does not inspire confidence. The evidence of the complainant apart from being highly interested, is discrepant and lacks credence.
22. R. C. Sharma, Tahsildar, joined as independent witness did not see or heard any demand of illegal gratification made by the accused nor did he see the passing of Rupees 2000/- by the complainant. The complainant admits in his, cross-examination that when he entered the quarter of the accused, he shook hands with the accused and thereafter, the B.D.O. went to the bathroom and he was asked to sit in the room. It is his further evidence that he had taken out the treated currency notes from his pocket, wrapped them in a paper while he was going to hand them over the money to the accused. It is the evidence of the complainant in his cross-examination that when he entered the residence of the accused, shook hands with the accused. It is thereafter he claims to have handed over the currency notes to the accused. In his own words, "When I went to the quarter of the accused at Mehla, peon of BDO Office was also present there. I handed over the amount to the BDO. When I entered the quarter of the accused, I shook my hands with the BDO/accused and thereafter he went to the bathroom and I was asked to sit in the room................".. "I had packed Rupees 2000/- in a paper while I was going to hand over the money to the accused, but, I did not handover the said paper to the police. I had probably taken out the said currency notes from the pocket of my shirt". It thus is evident that hands of the accused were smeared with phenolphthalein powder which powder went into the hands of the accused when the complainant shook hands with him. This explains the turning of the sodium carbonate water pink when hands of the accused were washed with this water. The possibility of the complainant having placed those currency notes underneath the bed when accused went to the toilet cannot also be ruled out. It is the own case of the prosecution that Peon of the B.D.O. Office was present but surprisingly, he has not been examined as witness.
23. The other witness associated with the raiding party is R. S. Sharma, the then Tahsildar Chamba. It is his evidence that he joined the raiding party constituted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Zone, Chamba. They left Chamba at about 11.00 a.m. in a van and got down from the van near Mehla bridge. Then they went to Patwarkhana on foot. One person of the Police Department was already standing outside the Patwarkhana. At about 1.30 p.m., a signal was received by a Police. All of them went to the residence of the B.D.O. He found that accused was held by his wrist by the Police Officials. Chain Lal Pradhan was also present there. Hands of the accused were washed in the solution of some powder which solution turned pink. It !s his further evidence that accused took out currency notes from underneath the bed and handed them over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In cross-examination, he admits that Memo Exhibit PW1/C regarding the currency notes which had been treated prior to his joining the raiding party had already been prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police before he arrived in the vigilance office. It is his further evidence that when he reached the office, Chain Lal and Karam Singh were not present and he only saw these two persons at the residence of the accused for the first time. He goes on to state that he had no conversation with these two persons. He is categorical that the bribe money was not handed over to the accused by the complainant in his presence.
24. The evidence of this witness is of no assistance to the prosecution. There is not a word in his evidence which may implicate the accused so far the demand and acceptance of bribe money is concerned. There is no evidence to link the accused with the acceptance of bribe money.
25. Eventhough the complainant Chain Lal claims that the school work had been completed much prior to September 21, 1997 when demand for illegal gratification was raised by the accused for releasing the payment regarding this work but there is no evidence as to when this work was completed. Learned Special Judge noticed :
..."It is the admitted case of the parties that after the completion of the work, the JE verifies the same and then he prepares the final bill in case the construction is found to be complete. The bill/abstract with his report is sent to the BDO for releasing the payment. But in this case insofar as the completion of construction of school work is concerned, the prosecution has relied on the abstract/bill Ex.PW5/A prepared by the J.E. This abstract shows that it was prepared on 4-10-97 only whereby the amount payable to the complainant came to be Rs. 15,200/-. The signatures of the JE on this abstract bill have been identified by PW5 Subhash Chand Accountant."
26. A perusal of the abstract/bill relating to the works of the construction of the school building Exhibit PW5/A shows that the final bill/abstract was prepared only on October 4, 1997 and therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the accused demanded illegal gratification for the release of this amount on September 21, 1997 is incredible. No such demand could have been raised by the accused on that date, as no bill was pending for release of the payment to the accused relating to the work of construction of the school building. The Junior Engineer who prepared this abstract/bill has not been examined by the prosecution. It was he who could have said as to when precisely this work relating to the construction of the school building was completed and when he prepared the final bill. This apart, it was the case of the complainant that Rupees 14,000/- were due to him as final instalment relating to this work but the payment which was due to the complainant after completion of the work was Rupees 15,200/- and not 14,000/- as is apparent from the abstract/bill Exhibit PW5/A. In this background, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the complainant.
27. The enmity between the accused and the complainant is evident from the evidence of Rattan Chand Bedi who then was Superintendent Grade-II of the BDO office Mehla. In his cross-examination he admitted that he received the complaint from the Vigilance Department mark 'X' against the complainant Chain Lal. It is the case of the accused that he was to produce the record to the Vigilance Department in respect of this complaint. It is also the case of the accused as noticed earlier, that the complainant wanted favours from him which he refused. He wanted some additional works to be allotted to him. The accused did not comply arid he made grievance of it and complained against the accused to the Local M.L.A. The complainant himself admitted that he made verbal complaints against the accused to the M.L.A. concerned. In his own words, "I had made verbal complaints against the accused to the MLA concerned".
28. Thus the possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. As already noticed, the evidence of the complainant and the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sukhdev Sharma (PW12) is highly interested and partisan and cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
29. As far back as in 1973, the Apex Court in Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 498 : (1972 Cri LJ 1293) held that evidence of interested and partisan witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons.
30. In the present case, as noticed earlier, the complainant prevaricated himself. He in spite of the directions of the Investigating Officer, shook hands with the accused which resulted in phenolphthalein smearing the hands of the accused. There is no evidence to show what transpired in the house of the accused. The evidence of the complainant cannot be implicitly relied upon.
31. In the present case, there is no other evidence, as noticed earlier, which may corroborate the version given by the complainant.
32. In Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 : (1976 Cri LJ 172), the Supreme Court reiterated that it is the duty of the officer in Anti-Corruption Department to secure independent and responsible witnesses in a trap case. In para 8 of the judgment, Their Lordships held :
The prosecution case also suffers from another serious infirmity and it is that it rests entirely on the evidence of witnesses who are either interested witnesses or police witnesses. Jagdish Raj was clearly an interested witness because he was concerned in laying the trap for the appellant. Arjun Das was also an interested witness as he was a relative of Jagdish Raj".
Their Lordships further observed (Para 8):
"We must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in the anti-corruption department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as possible for the protection of public servants against whom a trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and the Court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe".
33. In Ram Dubar Yadeo v. State of U.P., 2000 Cri LJ 899, accused was alleged to have demanded Rs. 50/- for reducing the reading of the consumption of the electricity. A trap was laid. No independent witness was joined. None of the witnesses joining the trap could testify about hearing of conversation between accused and complainant regarding the demand of bribe. In this context, it was held that conviction in the absence of independent evidence as to the conversation cannot be upheld,
34. This Court in Surinder Dev v. State of Himachal Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 1998 decided on July 15, 2003 Reported in (2004) 1 Cur (CCR) 626 (Him. Pra.) held that non-association of independent witnesses with the trap is a serious infirmity and the conviction cannot be rested entirely on the evidence of the interested witnesses or Police officials.
35. To conclude, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the accused raised or made any demand for illegal gratification of Rupees 2000/- or currency notes of Rupees 2000/- were accepted by the accused as illegal gratification. The version of the accused that he has falsely been implicated as Chain Lal was facing vigilance inquiry and was pressurizing him not to hand over the record to the Vigilance Department and that he has also reported against him to the local M.L.A. cannot entirety be ruled out more particularly in view of the evidence of Chain Lal himself and Subhash Chand (PW5).
36. No other point was urged.
37. In result the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused are discharged. The currency notes Exts. P3 to P22 shall be returned to the complainant as ordered by the learned Special Judge.