Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Ranbir Singh And Another on 28 January, 2010
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No. 251 MA of 2009
Date of decision: .28.1.2010
State of Haryana.
......Applicant
Vs.
Ranbir Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
PRESENT: Mr.S.S.Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.1.2009 passed by Special Judge, Rohtak vide which the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the charge framed against them.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint filed by one Raje against Ranbir Singh Junior Engineer and Rajpal, Gauge Reader of Sampla Water Services Division Rohtak, an inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Bureau, Sonipat, who found that complainant Raje had paid a sum of Rs.2000/- to both the accused in the presence of PWs Baljit Singh and Hanif on 8.9.2002 as illegal gratification for supplying canal water to him for the pond taken by him on lease from Gram Panchayat Ismaila for fish-farming. Out of the said amount of Rs.2000/-, the complainant had taken Rs.1000/- from Baljit and Rs.500/- from Hanif and Crl.Misc. No. M-251 MA of 2009 [2] the remaining amount of Rs.500/- was with him. It was also found that both the accused had received a further sum of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant on 4.11.2002 by threatening him that if he did not pay this amount, he would not get water from Dullehra Distributory, Sonepat. The complainant paid that amount to the accused after borrowing from his brother Mahabir in presence of Pws Baljit Singh and Mahabir. This inquiry was submitted to the Government and it was approved for registration of case against both the accused. On the basis of letter dated 9.1.2004 written by the Director State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula to Deputy Inspector General, State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak, the case was registered against the respondents-accused on 15.1.2004.
3. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented in Court and accused were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide order dated 25th January, 2006.
4. Both the parties led their respective evidence. After hearing arguments of both the parties, the Special Judge, Rohtak acquitted the accused on 15.1.2009 by giving them the benefit of doubt as the prosecution had not been able to prove any of the offence against any of the accused for which they were charge-sheeted beyond any reasonable doubt.
5. The State of Haryana has filed the present application against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents-accused by raising ground that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the inquiry report Ex.P-15 conducted by the Vigilance Bureau.
Crl.Misc. No. M-251 MA of 2009 [3]
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and also gone through the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
7. The learned trial Court has given a specific finding that on the basis of statement made by Raje PW-8, it has been proved that he and Rajinder Singh were habitual of making cuts in the canal for bringing water unauthorizedly for the ponds taken on lease by them. The complainant has also not proved that the amount of Rs.2000/- was paid in presence of Hanif and Baljit.
8. As far as payment of Rs.20,000/- is concerned, complainant Raje has stated that he had paid Rs.10,000/- each to both the accused separately after collecting from his brother Mahabir Singh PW-10 in the presence of his brother Mahabir and Baljit PW-11, whereas in the statement made by Baljit Singh PW-11 before the police, it was mentioned that amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid only to Ranbir Singh, JE by Raje. The real brother of complainant Raje has given a different version by stating that said amount was paid to Ranbir Singh who kept the same with him. The payment of sum of Rs.20,000/- has not been proved on the basis of statements made by the prosecution witnesses. It has also been mentioned in the judgment that Hanif and Mahabir were closely related to complainant Raje, being his real son-in-law and brother whereas Baljit Singh was proved to be partner of complainant Raje as has been admitted by Satbir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, PW-1 in his cross-examination by stating that Raje and Baljit Singh used to come together being partners. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and the statements of all the witnesses are inconsistent and no eye-witness was joined to corroborate the version of Crl.Misc. No. M-251 MA of 2009 [4] the prosecution.
9. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the prosecution was not able to prove any of the offence against any of the accused and they were rightly acquitted by the trial Court.
10. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. Leave to appeal is declined.
11. The petition is dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE January 28, 2010.
raghav