Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Lal vs State Of Haryana on 26 July, 2010
Crl. Appeal No. 1015-SB of 1997 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 1015-SB of 1997
Date of Decision: 26.7.2010
***
Jagdish Lal .. Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present:- Ms. Baljit K. Mann, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Rajeev Malhotra, Addl. AG Haryana
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The appellant was tried and ultimately convicted by the learned Special Judge, Rohtak, for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
In brief, the prosecution case is that on 8.12.1994, complainant Surat Singh had made an application for increase of load of his electric meter in the office of SDO(OP) HSEB, Kahanaur. According to the complainant, accused-appellant Jagdish Lal demanded a sum fo Rs.300/- as bribe for doing the needful otherwise he was told that the test report would be cancelled. In the last, complainant contacted the accused on 23.2.1995 who asked him to make the payment of Rs.300/- by 5 P.M. in his office or at his house. Complainant, however, approached Shri Anil Dhawan, DSP, to make a complaint who further approached the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak in this regard. The Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, directed Shri Dharampal Yadav, City Magistrate, to accompany the raiding party. Complainant then handed over six currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each to DSP Anil Dhawan which were initialled by the DSP and the Crl. Appeal No. 1015-SB of 1997 2 City Magistrate and then these currency notes were returned to complainant Surat Singh after applying phenolphthalein powder. Complainant was asked to hand over the currency notes and to give signal and for this, a shadow witness, Constable Hari Om was asked to witness the transaction and make a signal upon which the raiding party was to reach the spot. Thereafter, on such complaint, the present FIR came to be registered against the accused. Then the raiding party reached near the place of occurrence from where the complainant and one Hari Om Constable, a shadow witness, were told to get down from the vehicle. When the complainant on demand of the accused, handed over the money to him, Hari Om, the shadow witness on witnessing the transaction, gave signal to the raiding party which immediately reached at the spot. Upon search of the accused, six currency notes initialled by DSP and City Magistrate were recovered from the pocket of the shirt worn by the accused. Thereafter, when the hands of the accused, the recovered currency notes and the shirt worn by accused, were got washed in the solution prepared with sodium carbonate the colour of the solution turned pinkish. Thereafter, on completion of necessary formalities, the accused-appellant was arrested. Thereafter, final report was presented against the appellant and the learned trial Court on finding a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, charge-sheeted the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To substantiate the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and and closed its evidence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.
After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, the instant appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
The present appellant was then posted as ALM in HSEB, Kahanaur. Complainant in the instant case is PW-1 Surat Singh. He was already having a tubewell connection; however, the load was to be extended. The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite Crl. Appeal No. 1015-SB of 1997 3 of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is proof of a demand and then acceptance. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-1 Surat Singh suggests that there was no demand of illegal gratification by the accused- appellant. His statement right from the beginning is that it was the J.E. whom he had been meeting and he had inspected his tubewell as well and it was J.E. who had not accepted the test report and he had been meeting for the last 1½ year but he did not do anything. Rather his statement suggests that the DSP when met him had enquired from him as to the name of the person who had demanded the money and he told the DSP that J.E. had demanded the money but directed him to meet Jagdish Lal, appellant, in the office. His statement also does not suggest if any direction was given by the said J.E. to him to make particular amount of payment to Jagdish Lal. Complainant Surat Singh admits that prior to 23.2.1995, he never approached Jagdish Lal, ALM. He also admits in cross-examination that even on that date, he had not demanded any bribe from him. Thus, the tenor of his evidence suggests that he on his own had given Rs.300/- to Jagdish Lal for doing his work, which he himself contradicts in cross- examination that ALM is not concerned with the extension of load and the said job was to be done by the JE. PW-1 Surat Singh in clear words has stated that money given to Jagdish Lal was for onward transmission to said JE for getting the work done, for which as discussed above there was no demand by the accused-appellant Jagdish Lal and it also looks that he had no instructions from J.E. to accept money as it has come in the statement of PW-1 Surat Singh, complainant, that he showed reluctance to accept the money and told that in case the J.E. accepted the money, he would hand over the same to him otherwise he will return it to him(complainant). PW-9, Constable Hari Om, the shadow witness, also does not say that when Surat Singh had met Jagdish Lal, he(Jagdish Lal) had made any demand. Thus, the evidence of the complainant, PW-1 Surat Singh hardly establishes the demand made by the accused-appellant and thus, the factum of demand remains not proved.
Similar is the position with regard to the acceptance. There is nothing to suggest that accused-appellant was a party to any kind of arrangement between complainant Surat Singh and said J.E. and rather as per evidence discussed, he even had no knowledge about any kind of Crl. Appeal No. 1015-SB of 1997 4 settlement between the complainant and the said J.E. As discussed above, it has not been shown if the complainant was directed to pay Rs.300/- to Jagdish Lal or Jagdish Lal had got any such instructions from said J.E.; rather, for the sake of repetition, it is evident that upon a stress by the complainant, he took money with reluctance with the clear stipulation that if J.E. does not accept the money, he will return the same to him. The issue relating to the ingredients of acceptance was under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje and Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 287, wherein it was held that merely because accused No.2 was entrusted with some money to be passed on to accused No.1, it could not be held that he was guilty of any one of these offences unless it was established that he was a party to the arrangement and the arrangement arrived at was that the money would be handed over to accused No.2, to be given over to accused No.1. In that case also, admittedly, accused No.2 had no knowledge about the settlement and it was held that under these circumstances, it could not be said that accused No.2 accepted this amount for any purpose and it was observed as follows:-
" At best as the complainant told him to pass this money on to accused No.1 he accepted it but on that basis it could not be held that he was sharing the intention with accused No.1 or was acting on his behalf. In the circumstances the conclusions of lower Courts could not be sustained and the conviction and sentence against both the accused are to be set aside."
The ratio of Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje's case (supra), is duly applicable in the circumstances of the present case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance.
In view of the discussion above, the present appeal is allowed, judgment and order of conviction and sentence qua the appellant is set aside and he stands acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds stand discharged.
July 26, 2010 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE