Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State vs Gurtej Singh on 18 August, 2017
Author: A.B. Chaudhari
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari
CRA-S-1859-SBA of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1859-SBA of 2004
Date of decision: August 18, 2017
State of Punjab
.....Appellant
Versus
Gurtej Singh
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI
Present: Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG Punjab.
Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the respondent.
****
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J (Oral)
State of Punjab has taken exception to judgment and order
dated 05.03.2004 passed by Special Judge, Bathinda, by which the
learned trial Judge recorded the order of acquittal in Prevention of
Corruption Act File No.15 of 24.10.2000, decided on 05.03.2004, for the
offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act').
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and
perused the entire evidence documentary as well as oral.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State of Punjab objected
the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge and submitted
that the learned trial Judge committed an error by misreading the
evidence on record documentary as well as oral and therefore, the
finding is perverse. According to him, the respondent-accused was
clearly guilty of the offences for which he was charged and he had
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-08-2017 02:44:25 :::
CRA-S-1859-SBA of 2004 2
accepted illegal gratification of `800/- from Jaspal Singh for enhancing
the turn of water in his favour. The accused was caught red handed while
accepting bribe and there was evidence on record to convict him. The
trial Court, however, committed an error in acquitting the respondent-
accused.
Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-
accused supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He
contended that oral as well as documentary evidence does not support
the prosecution case at all. On the contrary, according to him, the
evidence stated by the prosecution is self-contradictory and the
prosecution had failed to prove its case that too beyond reasonable
doubts. Inviting my attention to the oral as well as documentary
evidence, learned counsel for the respondent-accused submitted that
earlier on 5-7 occasions, the complainant-Jaspal Singh had approached
the respondent-accused for extending turn of the water and in the cross-
examination, the complainant himself admitted that never in the past, the
respondent-accused on any of the occasion, raised a demand of illegal
gratification. It was, therefore, highly improbable that such demand was
made by the respondent-accused, particularly, because complainant-
Jaspal Singh knew that such an extension of turn of water could be made
by the higher authorities and not by the respondent-accused. In fact, that
was his experience for the last 5-7 occasions as his representation on
those 5-7 occasions that was provided, was rejected by the competent
authority for extension of turn of water. He, then contended that on all
probabilities, therefore, the trial Court found that the case was not worth
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-08-2017 02:44:26 :::
CRA-S-1859-SBA of 2004 3
holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubts and therefore, rightly acquitted the respondent-accused. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
I have gone through the entire evidence documentary as well
as oral that were shown by the learned counsel for the rival parties
during the course of hearing on few dates. I have compared the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court with the evidence on record and I am
satisfied that there is no perversity on the part of the trial Court in
recording the order of acquittal. Instead of repeating the reasons, I would
quote the reasons from the judgment of the trial Court as under:-
"But the application, Ex.P12 itself transpires that he same
was not marked by the Ziledar namely Balwinder Singh, to
the accused. It was also not in possession of the accused
Gurtej Singh, either on 10.04.2000, i.e. the day the first
demand was allegedly raised by the accused or on the next
day i.e. 11.04.2000 when the raid was conducted. No doubt,
DSP Vinod kumar PW7, has shown the recovery of the
aforesaid application, Ex.P12 alongwith copy of Jamabandi
Ex.P13 from the custody of the present accused at the time
of raid but the same stands falsified from the oral as well as
documentary evidence. There is no endorsement made by the
Ziledar, for sending the same to the Halqa Patwari i.e. the
accused for making any report etc. Moreover, there is the
testimony of Gurmit Singh, ARC PW3 who was in possession
of the aforesaid application Ex.P12, and it has been
categorically deposed by him that Ex.P12 was marked by
the Deputy Collector, to Ziledar, but the Ziledar did not
attend the office for 2/3 days and he kept the application
with him.
xxxx
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-08-2017 02:44:26 :::
CRA-S-1859-SBA of 2004 4
In the case in hand, it has come on record in the
statement of PW4 Vijay Kumar and PW10 Yog Raj, that the
recovery of tainted currency notes was effected prior to the
hand wash of the accused. If that is the position, the hand
was is bound to be positive as the accused already handed
over the tainted currency notes to the DSP on his asking.
But it is well settled that the recovery of tainted currency
notes de horse the demand would not be sufficient to convict
the accused. xxxx.
20. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, this
Court has already concluded that there was no occasion for
raising the demand. Rather, the application, Ex.P12, has
been falsely shown to be recovered from the custody of the
accused. Since there is no cogent evidence with regard to
the demand and the testimony of Jaspal Singh PW1 in this
regard is not reliable, the accused cannot be held guilty and
convicted on the ground or mere recovery of tainted
currency notes from his possession. Here it would be
pertinent to mention that even there is no cogent evidence
with regard to the first demand and the evidence adduced in
this regard is absolutely contradictory. Jaspal Singh PW1,
while subjected to cross examination has stated that he
moved application for the ten times in the Canal Department
after the decrease of time of his turn of water and had been
approaching time and again to Gurtej Singh Patwari in this
connection but he did not raise any demand of any amount
as illegal gratification on any such occasion. Even
otherwise, the case of the prosecution as set out in the report
under Section 173 Cr. P.C. is that the initial demand was
also raised by the accused in the presence of Jaswant Singh
PW2 from Jaspal Singh complainant PW1. But Jaspal Singh
PW1, while subjected to cross examination has stated that
Gurtej Singh accused, met him at village Jandian, on
10.04.2000, when he was going to his office by chance and
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-08-2017 02:44:26 :::
CRA-S-1859-SBA of 2004 5
on that day he raised the demand. Meaning thereby that the
demand was not raised by the accused in the presence of
Jaswant Singh. It has further been stated by PW1 Jaspal
Singh, that prior to that, he did not disclose about the
raising of demand to Jaswant Singh. Similarly, Jaswant
Singh, in the opening lines of his cross examination, has
also stated that he did not meet Gurtej Singh Patwari, along
with the complainant prior to 11.04.2000. Meaning there by
that the demand was not raised in his presence on
10.04.2000. So, when the demand itself is not established,
the recovery of tainted currency notes is of no evidentiary
value and no presumption can be drawn against the accused
to fasten with him with any liability and authorities relied
upon by the learned defence counsel in this regard referred
to above are fully applicable."
Looking to the above reasons in the judgment of the trial
Court, I find even the second view is not possible on the evidence. In the
light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Darshan Singh versus State of Punjab, 2010 Vol.2 Supreme Court
Cases 333, in Para 24 thereof, I make the following order:
ORDER
CRA-S-1859-SB of 2004 stands dismissed.
(A.B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE August 18, 2017 mahavir Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-08-2017 02:44:26 :::