Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Pritam Singh on 29 October, 2014
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No. S 457 SB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. S 457 SB of 2009
Date of decision 29.10.2014.
State of Haryana
...... Appellant.
versus
Pritam Singh
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present :- Shri Amit Kaushik, Senior DAG. Haryana for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Saini, Advocate for respondent.
K.C.PURI, J.
State of Haryana-appellant has directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by Shri Shekhar Dhawan, the then Special Judge (Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Kurukshetra vide which accused/respondent has been acquitted in a case FIR No.59 dated 29.9.2006 registered under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short - the Act) Police Station S.V. B., Ambala.
Criminal Appeal No. S 457 SB of 2009 2
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.9.2006 complainant Charanjit Singh reported to Inspector Vinod Kumar SVB, Kurukshetra unit through application that accused Pritam Singh while working as Assistant Foreman was demanded Rs.5000/- from him for restoration of the electricity connection of his tubewell. Complainant produced currency notes of Rs.5000/- of the denomination of Rs.500/- each before Inspector Vinod Kumar and Inspector Vinod Kumar put his initials on the currency notes and phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes. List of said currency notes was prepared and notes were handed over to the complainant. Complainant was asked to go to the office of accused at Ajrana Kalan and on his demand to hand over the said currency notes to the accused. HC Ravinder Singh was deputed as shadow witness and was directed to go after complainant Charanjit Singh and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and accused Pritam Singh and thereafter to pass the signal to the raiding party. Thereafter, complainant, shadow witness and the members of the raiding party reached the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and moved an application for permission to join the Gazetted officer in the raiding party. Shri Partap Singh BDPO was deputy as Duty Officer for conducting the raid and police party alongwith complainant and shadow witness visited the office of Shri Partap Singh and contacted him. After disclosing the facts of the case to BDPO and showing the orders of District Magistrate, Kurukshetra BDPO verified the facts and tallied the currency notes with the list. Ruqa was sent to police station for registration of the case. Thereafter, police party reached Criminal Appeal No. S 457 SB of 2009 3 near the power house Ajrana Kalan and parked their vehicle at a distance of 20/25 yards from the office of accused. Complainant and shadow witness were sent to the office of accused and raid was conducted. Thereafter, said notes were recovered from the possession of the accused and were tallied with the list and same were taken into police custody. Investigation commenced. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented.
3. On appearance of the accused copies of documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act against the accused. Who denied the charges and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined HC Manjit Singh PW-1, Constable Rishi Pal PW-2, Partap Singh BDPO as PW-3, Charanjit Singh complainant as PW-4, Mangat Ram Mehta as PW-5, Shital Sarkar as PW-6, HC Ravinder Singh as PW-7, M.R.Murari as PW-8, Malkiat Singh Constable as PW-9, Inspector Ved Parkash as PW-10, Inspector SHO Ram Niwas as PW-11, Inspector Vinod Kumar as PW-12 and closed the preliminary evidence.
5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused denied all the circumstances appearing against him and took up the plea that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing had happened as stated by the investigating officer and other witnesses. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. Criminal Appeal No. S 457 SB of 2009 4
6. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties acquitted the accessed from the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 30.07.2008.
7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 30.07.2008 complainant-State has directed the present appeal.
8. This Court vide order dated January 15, 2013 granted leave to appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
10. State counsel has submitted that mere fact that complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground for acquittal. The shadow witness, official witnesses and investigating officer have supported the case of the prosecution on all its all material particulars. The currency notes were recovered from the respondent-accused. No explanation for recovery of currency notes has been given. Otherwise also, Section 20 of the Act envisages that in case of recovery of illegal gratification the accused has to explain under what circumstances he is in possession. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of said section it would be presumed that accused has accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person, any gratification or any valuable thing from any person, unless the contrary is proved.
11. The counsel for the respondent-accused has supported the judgment of the trial court.
Criminal Appeal No. S 457 SB of 2009 5
12. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.
13. It is settled law that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. No doubt, the conviction can be ordered even if complainant resiled but the trial Court has taken a number of circumstances for acquittal of the accused- respondent. The demand and acceptance can be proved by the complainant and shadow witness. Charanjit Singh (PW-4) has not supported the case of the prosecution. Now, the Court is left with the testimony of (PW-7) Ravinder Singh shadow witness, Partap Singh BDPO (PW-3) and Inspector Vinod Kumar as PW-12. As per statement of Partap Singh BDPO (PW-3) he has initialed the currency notes but when the same were produced in the Court the said currency notes were not having the initials of the said witness. Said witness has further stated that the complainant had given a signal to the raiding party and not Ravinder Singh (PW-7) shadow witness and that fact runs counter to the prosecution story. Partap Singh BDPO (PW-3) has stated that currency notes were in envelope whereas other material witness has stated that the same were not in envelope. So, the manner of recovery has also become doubtful. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused after giving detailed reasoning.
14. So far as the applicability of Section 20 of the Act is concerned that will apply only if the prosecution is able to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The learned trial court has rightly observed that there is serious dent in the prosecution story regarding Criminal Appeal No. S 457 SB of 2009 6 proving the factum of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
15. So, in these circumstances, no ground for interference in the present appeal is made out.
16. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
17. A copy of this judgment be conveyed to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K. C. PURI )
September 29 , 2014 JUDGE
sv