Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Singh Son Of Nand Lal vs The State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2009
Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
Date of Decision:01.04.2009
Ram Singh son of Nand Lal, r/o Kharoti Kalan, Tehsil
Narnaul
.... Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. P.S. Sullar, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
---
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.04.1995, rendered by the Special Judge, Gurgaon, vide which he convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to be as the 'Act' only) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three months.
Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--2--
2. The facts, in brief, are that Arjun Dass, complainant, made a complaint Ex.PF, containing the allegations that he was a resident of village Chaturpur, Police Station Shahapur, District Jaipur and was a Civil Contractor. At the relevant time, he was dealing in 'Dhopur Pather' at Palm Vihar, Gurgaon. On 17.08.1991, there was a quarrel between his labourers, and the labourers of Beni Ram, another contractor. It was further stated that, on account of that reason, the Police wanted to arrest Ram Chander Chitter, labourer. On 01.09.1991, at about 2.30 PM Arjun Dass, had taken the aforesaid labourer in Maruti Van bearing registration No. DAC/ 6075 to Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. On reaching there, Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, who was also the Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, had retained the maruti van of the complainant and told him that he was also involved in this case. The complainant was also given beating by the aforesaid Assistant Sub Inspector. At the same time, the complainant was told that, in case, he wanted his name to be deleted from the case, he should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as bribe to him ( Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector ). The complainant was also told that when a sum of Rs.10,000/- aforesaid was paid by him, his name would be deleted from the case. The complainant requested Ram Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--3--
Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, that he was not in a position to pay the amount, aforesaid, but he ( Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector) did not agree. The complainant could not arrange the money. Thereafter, the complainant met his friend Ram Singh son of Banwari Lal Soni, who had advised him not to pay the gratification, other than legal remuneration to Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, but apply for bail and obtain bail order from the Court. He accordingly, moved an application in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. The report was sought from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Gurgaon. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar Gurgaon had further sought the report from the Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Incharge Police Post, made a report on 07.09.1991 that in FIR No. 472 of 1991, under Sections 148, and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the name of Arjun Dass, complainant, did not appear as an accused. He, (Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector ), however, reported that one of the witnesses namely Shiv Charan, in his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had named Arjun Dass, as one of the persons, involved in the quarrel. He also reported that the statement of Beni Singh, contractor, was yet to be recorded. In his report, Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, aforesaid, denied that the Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--4--
van, referred to above, was in his possession. The Court asked for further report from the Police Station. Thereafter, the Complainant alongwith his friend Ram Singh Soni, visited Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, put that application before the complainant, and told that, in case, he wanted to get rid of the case, he should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, otherwise, he( Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector ) would further involve him, in a false case, alongwith van, aforesaid. They made repeated requests to Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, for reduction of the amount, demanded, whereupon, he agreed that he( complainant) be paid a sum of Rs.4000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration otherwise, he ( complainant ) would be challaned. Since the complainant was not ready to pay the gratification, other than legal remuneration, to Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, he ( complainant ) moved an application Ex.PF, referred to above that Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, would not allow him as well as van, aforesaid, to be released. The complainant also stated that he had brought Rs.4000/- and the action be taken against the accused.
2-A. Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of complaint, Ex.PF, and the currency notes of Rs.4000/- ( Ex.P10 to Ex.P45), recorded the details of the same Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--5--
and seized the same, vide memo Ex.PG. He also took into possession the application Ex.PE, and another application Ex.PE/3, moved by the complainant, vide recovery memo Ex.PE/4. Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, made an endorsement Ex.PF/2, on the complaint Ex.PF, moved by the complainant, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex.PF/1 was registered. Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, moved an application, Ex.PF/3, before the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, for his permission to conduct the raid. Vide order Ex.PF/4, permission was granted, for conducting the raid. Anil Kumar Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was also associated and apprised of all the facts of the case. Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, sprinkled the powder, on the currency notes, aforesaid, and the same were signed by Anil Kumar Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Arjun Dass, complainant, was given the currency notes, vide memo Ex.PH, with the instructions, to hand over the same, to Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, on demand. Ram Singh Soni was asked to accompany Arjun Dass, complainant, as a shadow witness. Ram Singh Soni, was also directed that, as soon as the amount, aforesaid, was paid by Arjun Dass, complainant, to Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, he should give the signal. Thereafter, the Police Party proceeded to Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, alongwith the Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--6--
aforesaid witnesses. On receipt of the signal, given by Ram Singh Soni, raid was conducted. On personal search of the accused, a sum of Rs.4000/- and handkerchief were recovered from the left side pocket of his pant and were taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. Thereafter, a solution, containing sodium carbonate was prepared. The fingers of the hands of the accused were got washed therein, as a result whereof, the colour thereof turned into light pinkish. The solution was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PK. The pocket of the pant of the accused was got removed, after arranging another pant. Again solution in the aforesaid manner, was prepared. The pocket of the pant of the accused was reversed and dipped therein, as a result whereof, the colour thereof, turned into light pinkish. The solution was put in a separate nip, and taken into possession vide recovery memo PL. The handwash of the complaint was also obtained and seized vide recovery memo Ex.PM. The pant and the handkerchief, after converting into parcels, were taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PL/1. The maruti van bearing registration No. DAC- 6075 was also seized, vide recovery memo Ex.PN from the Police Post. The rough site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. An entry Ex.PQ was made in the DDR of Police Post Palam Vihar. The statements of the witnesses were recorded.
Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--7--
The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, and on receipt of sanction for launching prosecution, against the accused, the challan was presented.
3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 13(I) (d) (ii) of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Mukesh Kumar, Draftsman, (PW1), who prepared the site plan Ex.PA, Krishan Kumar, Head Constable, a member of the raiding party, (PW-2), who proved photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P9, the negatives thereof Ex.P1/A to Ex.P9/A, Mahabir Singh, Head Constable, (PW-3), who proved Ex.PB, the posting order of the accused, Jagwant Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Yamuna Nagar, (PW-4), who prepared the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Arun Jain, Ahlmad to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, (PW-5), who proved application Ex.PE, dated 06.07.1991, the orders Ex.PE/1, Ex.PE/2 on the same, Arjun Dass, complainant, (PW-6), Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (PW-7), who conducted the raid, Ram Singh, shadow witness, (PW-8), Duli Chand, Head Clerk, S.P. Office, Rewari, (PW-9), who proved the sanction order Ex.PO, and Dharam Pal, Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--8--
Constable, (PW-10), who proved Ex.PP, copy of FIR No. 472 dated 17.08.1991, under Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Public Prosecutor also tendered into evidence the affidavits PC,and PD of Moharrir Head Constable, Surender Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector, Jag Phool respectively. The report PS of the Forensic Science Laboratory, was also tendered into evidence by the prosecution. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him that he never demanded any illegal gratification, nor accepted the same from Arjun Dass, complainant. He further stated that the entire raid and recovery were false and concocted. It was further stated by him that Arjun Dass, was an accused, in a criminal case and requested him to absolve him ( complainant ). He further stated that, on his refusal to do so, a false case was registered against him. He also stated that Arjun Dass was lateron challaned by the successor Investigating Officer.
6. The accused examined Om Parkash, Constable, (DW1), who proved Ex.DW1/A, copy of the DDR, and Subhash Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--9--
Chander, Constable, (DW-2). Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.
9 I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution was neither credible nor corroborated, through an independent source, and, as such, the trial Court, was wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence, to the accused. The case of the prosecution was unfolded by Arjun Dass, complainant, (PW-6). According to him, his labourers were working in Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. He further stated that his labourers quarreled with the labourers of Beni Ram, another contractor. Some of the labourers suffered injuries. It was further stated by him, that on 21.08.1991, he came to know about this, when he returned from his village in Rajasthan. It was further stated by the complainant that the Police had brought him to Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. Ajit Singh, Head Constable, told him to produce Ram Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--10--
Chander Chitter labourer. He went back to Rajasthan and on 01.09.1991 came back with the labourer. It was further stated by him that, in the meanwhile, Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, who had taken over the charge of Police Post Palam Vihar, detained his Maruti Van No. DAC-6075, and told him that he could take back the same, after paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification. He further stated that he could not arrange the money. He further stated that he talked to his friend Ram Singh Soni, who advised him not to give any illegal gratification to Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. However, on his request, Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, agreed to receive a sum of Rs.4000/-. Thereafter a complaint was made by the complainant, narrating the aforesaid allegations and also handed over a sum of Rs.4000/- to Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was further stated by him that the currency notes were taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PG . The currency notes were initialed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The same were treated with phenol-pathelein powder, and after noting down the numbers thereof, in the memo, the same were handed over to him. It was further stated by him, that the necessary instructions were imparted to him and Ram Singh Soni, shadow witness, as stated above. The evidence of Arjun Dass, complainant, (PW-6) is clear to the effect that on demand, he paid a sum of Rs.4000/- as Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--11--
gratification other than legal remuneration to Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, for deleting his name, from the case as also for releasing the maruti van, aforesaid. The statement of Arjun Dass, complainant, was duly corroborated by Ram Singh Soni, shadow witness, in all material particulars. Further corroboration to their statements was provided by Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who recovered the tainted currency notes, from the pocket of the pant of the accused, in respect whereof, he could not furnish any explanation. Still further corroboration was provided to the ocular version, through handwash of the accused, in the solution, prepared in the aforesaid manner, and pocket wash of the pant of the accused, as a result thereof the solution turned into pinkish. Further corroboration was provided through Ex.PS, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, according to which, phenol-pathelein powder was detected on the tainted currency notes, and pathelein and sodium carbonate were detected in the hand wash of the accused, hand wash of the complainant, and pocket wash of the pant of the accused. It was for the accused to furnish the explanation, as to how, the tainted currency notes of Rs. 4000/-, reached the left side pocket of his pant. In Roop Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1991 (SC) 1125, it was held that where the accused was not able to explain the presence of phenolphthalein Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--12--
powder, on his hands, his conviction, under the relevant Sections, was legally sustainable. There was no reason, on the part of Arjun Dass, complainant, (PW-6), Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (PW-7) and Ram Singh, shadow witness, (PW-8), to falsely implicate the accused, in the instant case. There is nothing, on the record, that the complainant and Ram Singh, as also the other witnesses were having any enmity with the accused earlier to the incident. There was a motive with the accused to demand and accept gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 4000/- from the complainant, which was proved from the copy of application Ex.PE, moved by Arjun Dass, complainant, on which report was made by Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Ex.PE/2 order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, thereon, Ex.PE/3 another application, moved by Arjun Dass, complainant, on which Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector ( accused ), Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar, made a report that the van, aforesaid, was not in the Police Post. The gratification, other than legal remuneration, was demanded and accepted by Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, for deleting the name of the complainant, in case FIR No. 472 dated 17.08.1991, under Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--13--
Gurgaon, which was registered on account of the quarrel between his labourers and the labourers of Beni Ram, another contractor and also for release of his maruti van, which had already been seized by him ( Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector ). These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but they stood the test of touchstone of all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. The trial Court was, thus, right in holding that from the evidence, on record, it was proved that the accused demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration, from the complainant, as a motive or reward, for deletion of his name from the case, referred to above, which was registered on account of the quarrel between his labourers and the labourers of Beni Ram, another contractor, as also for release of his maruti van, which had already been seized by him ( Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector ). The trial Court, was, thus, right in recording conviction but the offence was punishable under Section 13(2), for contravention of the provisions of Section 13 (1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The correct provision of law, under which the sentence was required to be awarded was 13(2) of the Act. The sentence awarded by the trial Court, is, thus, converted into one under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for contravention of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the same. The submission of Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--14--
the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the prosecution story was completely un-natural and improbable. He further submitted that had any gratification, other than legal remuneration, referred to above, been demanded on 01.09.1991 from the complainant, by Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Incharge of Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, he would not have kept silent, for a period of ten days as ultimately he moved an application on 11.09.1991. He further submitted that this clearly showed that there was neither any demand, nor any acceptance of gratification, other than legal remuneration, by Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, from the complainant. It may be stated here, that when on 01.09.1991, the gratification, other than legal remuneration, was demanded by Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, from the complainant, for deletion his name in the FIR, referred to above, which was registered on account of the quarrel, between his labourers and the labourers of Beni Ram, another contractor, the complainant talked to Ram Singh Soni, shadow witness, who advised him not to pay gratification, other than legal remuneration to him ( Ram Singh, ASI ), and move an application for bail and release of maruti van, in the aforesaid case. He took his advice in its right Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--15--
perspective, and then moved an application for bail, copy whereof is Ex.PE in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, on which, report of the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, was sought, who further sought the report from the Incharge Police Post Palam Vihar. The report dated 07.09.1991 made by Incharge Police Post i.e. Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, did not satisfy the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and, accordingly, on the same day, vide order Ex. PE/2 dated 07.09.1991, another report was sought from the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, to the effect that he should specifically state as to whether, Arjun Dass was an accused in the aforesaid FIR or not. Report was made by the Incharge, Police Post Palam Vihar, Gurgaon that Arjun Dass was not an accused but named by a witness, in his statement, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as person involved in the quarrel. Arjun Dass, moved an application Ex.PE/3 for release of maruti van on superdari. On this application, Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Post, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon made a report dated 07.09.1991 that the same was not in the Police Post. The maruti van, aforesaid, was detained by Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, who told the complainant that in case he ( complainant ) wanted that his name be deleted from the FIR, Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--16--
aforesaid, and the maruti van be released, then he should pay him the amount of gratification. In the first instance, the complainant took recourse to the legal remedy. However, when his van was not released, left with no alternative, he had to move Ex.PF, an application, before Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, for taking action against the accused. It was, under these circumstances, that delay occurred. The delay in reporting the matter to the Police stood explained from the facts and circumstances , referred to above. The case of the prosecution, therefore, could not be said to be, in any way, improbable or unnatural. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that no independent witness was joined in the Police party at the time of conducting the alleged raid and, as such, the case of the prosecution became highly doubtful. It may be stated here, that there is nothing, on the record, that when the Police party started for conducting the raid, any independent witness was available, but was not intentionally and deliberately joined. The evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be disbelieved and distrusted, merely, on account of their official status. In the face of the evidence of the official witnesses only, the Court is required to be put, on guard, to scrutinize the same, Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--17--
carefully and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the same does not suffer from inherent infirmities, the same can be believed. In the instant case, Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (PW-7), who was a Senior Officer, had no ill-will, or enmity against the accused. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to him, that he had been pressing the accused to arrange taxies, for him, and also to make available the provisions for him free of cost. The suggestion was denied by him. From the suggestion, aforesaid, it could not be deduced, that Ganga Ram, Deputy Superintendent of Police, in any way, was inimically disposed towards the accused. The evidence of the official witnesses , is cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy. 12-A. In Ram Kishan Vs. State of Punjab, 1995, Crl. L. J. 2892, it was held as under:-
"From the decisions of the Supreme court in the above mentioned cases, it is thus clear that the prosecution version on the basis of oral evidence of the complainant and the Police officers, without corroboration of a public witness can be accepted when besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the complainant and the Police officers must necessarily be corroborated by independent witnesses to convict the accused in a case under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section (2) of the Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code."
Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--18--
12-B. In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297 (S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled that the evidence of search or seizure, made by the police will not become vitiated, solely for the reason that the same was not supported by an independent witness. In State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil (2000)I S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:-
"It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature."
12-C. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witness had not been examined, by it (prosecution). It was further held, in the said authority, that the civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the victims' side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--19--
themselves away from the Courts, unless it is inevitable.
Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves, in it. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable, to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, mere non-joining of an independent witness, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and reliable, and there was no reason, on their part to falsely implicate the accused, no doubt, is cast on the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the sanction accorded, in this case, by the Sanctioning Authority, was invalid, as the said authority did not apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that, in the absence of valid sanction, no conviction could be recorded by the trial Court. The submission of the counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Ex.PO is the sanction, which was accorded by the competent authority. The perusal of the said sanction, clearly goes to show that the facts of the case were detailed therein. It is further evident from the sanction Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--20--
that after fully and carefully examining the material placed, before the competent authority, in regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case, it was considered that Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector should be prosecuted in a Court of law, for the offence, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under these circumstances, to say that the record was not produced before the competent authority, and that no due application of mind was made to the same, is not correct. In Shiv Raj Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 (SC), 1419, it was held that where the order of sanction shows, on the face of it, what were the facts, constituting the offence charged, against the accused, and the order further recites that the sanctioning authority after fully and carefully examining the material before it, in regard to the aforesaid allegations, in the case, considers that a prima facie case is made out, against the accused, the order fulfills the requirements of Section 6 (now section 19) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The principle of law, laid down, in Shiv Raj Singh's case ( supra ), is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, the case file was produced before the competent authority. The competent authority, after due application of mind, to the facts and circumstances of the Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--21--
case, came to the conclusion, that it was a fit case, in which, the sanction, should be accorded for launching prosecution against the accused. The findings of the trial Court, that the sanction was valid, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, are upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
14. The Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could be drawn, against the accused, as the tainted currency notes were recovered, from the pocket of the pant worn by him. He further submitted that once the currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the pant of the accused, it was for him to explain, as to how the same came into his possession, which were a short-while ago, in the possession of the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent, in this regard, appears to be correct, in view of the evidence, discussed above. In Tarlok Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1977, S.C. 666, a case, relating to Section 5(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the question, with regard to the interpretation and scope of Section 4 (1) (now under Section
20), arose before the Apex Court, wherein, it was held as Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--22--
under:-
"The degree and the character of the burden of proof which Section 4(1) casts on an accused person, to rebut the presumption raised thereunder, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof, which under Section 101, Evidence Act, rests on the prosecution. While the mere plausibility of an explanation, given by the accused in his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C., may not be enough, the burden on him to negate the presumption may stand discharged if the effect of the material brought, on the record, in its totality, renders the existence of the fact presumed, improbable. In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption, by showing a mere preponderance of probability, in his favour; it is not necessary for him to establish his case, beyond a reasonable doubt. AIR 1974. S.C. 773, followed.
The sole purpose of the presumption under Section 4(1) is to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving a fact which is an essential ingredient of the offences, under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Penal Code. The presumption, therefore, can be used in furtherance of the prosecution case and not in derogation of it. If the story set up by the prosecution inherently militates against or is in consistent with the fact presumed, the presumption will be rendered sterile from its very inception, if out of judicial courtesy, it cannot be rejected out of hand as still-born."
15. The plain reading of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, reveals that the accused can rebut such presumption, by leading evidence, or from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is, no doubt, not Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--23--
necessary for him, to establish his case, to rebut such statutory presumption, operating against him, under Section 20, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the accused, however, could not furnish any explanation in this regard. The case of the prosecution has been held to be probable and natural. The evidence produced by the prosecution, has been held to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy. It could, therefore, be safely held that the accused demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 4000/-, as a motive or reward, for deletion of the name of the complainant, in case FIR No. 472 dated 17.08.1991, under Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, which was registered, on account of the quarrel between his labourers, and the labourers of Beni Ram, another contractor, as also for release of maruti van, which had already been seized, by him, ( Ram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector ). It has already been held that that there is no reason, on the part of the complainant, to falsely implicate the accused, in the instant case. The aforesaid un-rebutted statutory presumption, further strengthens the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
Crl. Appeal No. 222-SB of 1995
--24--
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, with the aforesaid conversion, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, with the aforesaid conversion, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
19. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to take necessary steps to comply with the judgment, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C, and submit compliance report with two months.
20. The District & Sessions Judge, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and compliance report is sent within the time stipulated.
21. The Registry is directed to keep track, that the directions are complied with, within the stipulated time. The papers be put up within 10 days, of the expiry of the time frame, whether the report is received or not, for further action.
01.04.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) dinesh JUDGE