Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 17 September, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006
Date of Decision: 17.9.2014
Dr.Ashok Kumar ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Aditya Pal Singla, Advocate,Legal Aid Counsel.
Mr.Abhilaksh Grover,Assistant Advocate
General, Haryana.
**
Sabina, J.
Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.29 dated 22.7.2002 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`the Act' for short) registered at Police Station SVB Ambala.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that a fight had taken place between Risal Singh and Des Raj with their neighbours on 18.7.2002. In the said fight, Risal Singh and Des Raj suffered injuries and they were brought to the Community Health Centre (`CHC' for short), Kalayat for treatment. Appellant refused to RAJ KUMARI BHALLA 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 2 examine the injured and the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. On a complaint moved by the complainant- Ramesh Chand, appellant was directed to examine the injured. Appellant,however, demanded `2000/- for doing the needful. Complainant paid `500/- to the appellant and told the appellant that he was unable to pay another sum of ` 1500/-. Complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal. Inspector- Kulwant Singh ordered the registration of FIR on the basis of the statement of the application moved by the complainant. Thereafter, a raid was organized. Complainant handed over two currency notes in the denomination of `500/- each and five currency notes in the denomination of `100/- each to the Inspector-Kulwant Singh. Inspector returned the currency notes to the complainant after application of phenolphthalein powder (hereinafter referred to as P.Powder). The currency notes were also initialed by the Inspector Vigilance and witness Sanjeev Verma. Complainant was directed to hand over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. Mahesh Kumar was deputed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant and shadow witness went inside the office of the appellant. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant. The said currency notes were kept by the appellant in the right pocket of his pant. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, Inspector along with remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. . The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right RAJ KUMARI BHALLA 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 3 pant pocket of the appellant. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in possession. When the right pant pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and the same was taken in possession. Appellant was arrested.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
During trial,prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Appellant, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of the prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:-
"It is a false case. I have been falsely implicated in this case. On 19.7.2002, I came in general hospital Kaithal to attend the meeting and there I was directed by C.M.O. to conduct MLR of the injured as they were from the area of Kalayat. On that date, I was present in my office and from there, I was brought by the police in police station Kalayat and there this false case was planted against me. I never demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from anyone. On 9.1.1988, I lodged FIR against Ramesh complainant and other 54 persons, who were practicing as RMP doctors in the area of Kalayat vide FIR No.35 of 1998 in police station Kalayat under Sections 419, RAJ KUMARI BHALLA 420, 468, 471,173 IPC and due to that grudge in connivance 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 4 with the police, the present false case was registered against me. I am innocent."
Trial Court, vide judgment/order dated 13.11.2006, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-Dr.Ashok Kumar.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Complainant, who was the material witness, had not supported the prosecution case. Thus, there was no evidence on record qua the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant. No independent witness had been joined at the time of raid. Appellant was having a clean service record. In fact, on 9.1.1998, appellant had lodged an FIR against the complainant and other 54 persons. Due to this reason, appellant had been falsely involved in this case by the complainant.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that, although, the complainant had not supported the prosecution case during trial but the same was duly proved by the other witnesses. It was duly established on record that PW10 Risal Singh and PW11 Des Raj had suffered injuries on 18.7.2002 and they were removed to CHC Kalayat where the appellant was posted as a doctor. Appellant demanded `1500/- to medically examine the said witnesses. In a raid organized by the vigilance department, appellant was caught red handed while accepting bribe.
RAJ KUMARI BHALLA
Prosecution case was set in motion, on the basis of the 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 5 statement of the complainant-Ramesh Chand. Ramesh Chand, however, did not support the prosecution case when he appeared in the witness box as PW8.
PW10 Risal Singh deposed that on 18.7.2002, he was working in his fields with his uncle Des Raj. In the meantime, Inderjeet Singh, Sham Lal, Bikram, Devi Lal and others came to the spot after consuming liquor and started quarreling with them. The said persons gave injuries to him and his uncle Des Raj. Thereafter, he was removed to CMC Kalayat with his uncle. Appellant was posted as a Doctor in the said Centre. Assailants again came to the hospital and gave beatings to him and his uncle. Appellant declined to give medical aid to him and demanded `1500/-. Then his father took him to Kaithal where they narrated the occurrence to Chief Medical Officer (`CMO' for short). On instructions from the CMO, they were provided medical aid at Civil Hospital, Kaithal. When they demanded copy of the MLR from the appellant, he demanded `1500/-. Copies of the MLR were supplied to them after the payment of the said money.
PW11 Des Raj duly corroborated the statement of PW10.
Thus, although, the complainant has not supported the prosecution case but the injured have duly deposed that they had suffered injuries in a quarrel with Inderjeet Singh and others. Appellant had given them the copies of the medico legal report after accepting bribe money.
RAJ KUMARI BHALLA
PW9 Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 22.7.2002, he 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 6 was deputed to act as a shadow witness in a raid organized by Inspector- Kulwant Singh. As per the said witness, he remained standing near the window of the Laboratory, whereas, the complainant had gone to the Office of the appellant. On receipt of a signal from the complainant, he had further given signal to the raiding party,who reached the spot. Tainted currency notes were recovered from the right pant pocket of the appellant. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. When the right pant pocket of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink.
PW13 Sanjeev Verma, official witness has duly corroborated the version of the shadow witness qua recovery of the tainted currency notes from the right pant pocket of the appellant in a raid organized by the Vigilance Department.
PW12 Kulwant Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case has also corroborated the statement of shadow witness qua the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the right pant pocket of the appellant. He further deposed that on 18.10.2002, he took in possession of the copies of the medico legal report of Des Raj and Risal Singh.
Thus, in the present case, although, the complainant had not supported the prosecution case but the same is duly established from the statements of the injured as well as shadow witness, investigating officer and official witnesses. Appellant was caught red handed while accepting bribe in a raid organized by the RAJ KUMARI BHALLA 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 7 Vigilance Department. The currency notes in question were recovered from the right pant pocket of the appellant. The fact that the colour of the solution had turned pink when the fingers as well as right pant pocket of the appellant were dipped in a solution leads to the inference that the currency notes had been dealt by the appellant.
Appellant has taken the plea that he had been falsely involved in this case as he had lodged the FIR against the complainant and 54 other persons. In this regard, DW3 MHC Manphool Singh was examined by the appellant. The said witness proved FIR No.35 dated 27.1.1998 registered under Sections 419,420,467,468,471,473 IPC at Police Station Kalayat against the complainant Ramesh, Rajinder and others. In all the total accused in the said case were 105. In his cross-examination, the said witness deposed that the case after investigation was cancelled on 2.6.2001. The Court had ordered for reinvestigation but no accused had been arrested.
Thus, the FIR was registered in the year 1998, whereas, the present trap case relates to the year 2002. Complainant was not arrested in the FIR registered against him. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the FIR in question was registered against the appellant as a counter blast on account of registration of FIR against the complainant at the behest of the appellant. Complainant has not supported the prosecution case during trial. However, from the statements of the injured, it is evident that the said injured RAJ KUMARI BHALLA had 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 8 suffered injuries in an occurrence which had taken place on 18.7.2002. As per the MLRs of Risal Singh and PW Des Raj, they were medico legally examined in CHC Kalayat by the appellant on 19.7.2002. A perusal of the MLR Ex. PN/A reveals that duration of injuries was 24 hours. So far as injured-Risal and Des Raj are concerned, they have no axe to grind against the appellant.
So far as DW1 Dr.C.P.Vermani is concerned, he has proved Exhibit D1. The said witness fails to advance the case of the appellant. The said witness has proved on record Exhibit D1 and cheque dated 18.7.2002.,Exhibit D2 in favour of Senior Medical Officer CHC Kalayat. As per Exhibit D1, cheque in favour of CMO CHC Kalayat was issued on 18.7.2002 and was got encashed on 19.7.2002. However, in cross-examination, DW1, who had proved Exhibit D1, deposed that he had not brought the original record. The fact that the cheque was got encashed by the appellant on 19.7.2002 fails to advance the case of the appellant. From Exhibit D1 or Exhibit D2 , it cannot be said that the appellant had no occasion to demand bribe amount in question.
Thus, in the present case, there is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The fact that the complainant had not supported the prosecution case, is not fatal to the prosecution version as the other witnesses have duly proved the prosecution case. Since PW13 Sanjeev Verma was joined as an official witness, there is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witness RAJ KUMARI BHALLA 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court CRA-S-2430-SB of 2006 9 had been joined at the time of raid. The fact that the appellant was having a clean record is also not sufficient to doubt the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The official witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duty and has no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case.
Thus, in the present case, learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant qua commission of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
( SABINA ) JUDGE September 17,2014 arya RAJ KUMARI BHALLA 2014.09.23 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document High Court