Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 July, 2010
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000
Date of Decision: July 30, 2010
Surinder Singh .......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.TS Sangha, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Ashok Jindal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.JS Bhullar, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 15.3.2000 whereby the learned Special Judge, Mansa (hereinafter referred as 'Trial Court') convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The accused-appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -2- Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as projected in paras 2 and 3 of the Trial Court judgment, is that:
"Ram Narain alias Raja Ram, resident of village Khaira Khurd, Police Station Sardulgarh, has three brothers. They have 36 killas of land, out of which the land measuring 4 killas and 2 kanals is in his name. He needed money for domestic expenses. For that purpose he was to mortgage his 3 killas of land. Due to this reason, he needed the jamabandi of his land. On 30.5.1997, he went to Surinder Singh, Patwari Halqa Khaira Khurd, in his office at Sardulgarh, located in a shop at about 10.00 a.m. He met Surinder Singh patwari and requested him for the supply of a copy of jamabandi. Surinder Singh patwari demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from Ram Narain for the supply of a copy of jamabandi. Ram Narain requested him that he was unable to pay such a huge amount, upon which Surinder Singh agreed to obtain a sum of Rs.700/- as illegal gratification, from him for this purpose. Ram Narain told that he was not in possession of that amount, at that time. Surinder Singh accused told him that since there were holidays on Saturday and Sunday was closed day, he (Ram Narain) should come to him on Monday in the after-noon with a sum of Rs.700/- and pay him the same. He further told him that thereafter he would prepare a copy of Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -3- jamabandi and deliver him. Since Ram Narain did not want to pay illegal gratification to the accused, he made a false promise, with him and came back.
On 2.6.1997, Ram Narain along with Rup Ram son of Bhaga Ram, resident of Khaira Khurd, went to the office of the DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Mansa. He met Mukhtiar Singh, DSP, Vigilance Bureau Mansa in his office. Ram Narain then made his statement Ex.PE to Mukhtiar Singh, DSP Vigilance. It was read over and explained to him and after admitting the same to be correct, he signed the same in Punjabi. This statement was attested by Mukhtiar Singh, DSP. Ram Narain then produced a sum of Rs.700/- before the DSP Vigilance. These currency notes were of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Mukhtiar Singh, DSP then applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes. The numbers of those notes were mentioned in memo Ex.PF. After satisfying himself that nothing was left with Ram Narain, so treated currency notes with phenolphthalein powder were handed over to Ram Narain, by the DSP, vide memo Ex.PF, attested by him (Ram Narain) and Rup Ram PW. A direction was given to Ram Narain that as and when Surinder Singh accused demanded illegal gratification from him, he should pay the amount of Rs.700/- aforesaid to him. Rup Ram was appointed as a shadow witness, with a direction that he should remain with Ram Narain, hear exchange of talk between him and the accused and observe the exchange of currency notes between him and the accused. He Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -4- was further directed that thereafter he should give a promised signal by stirring his right hand on his head to the raiding party. Endorsement Ex.PE/1 was appended on the statement, Ex.PE, of Ram Narain and the same was handed over to Des Raj, constable, for taking the same to the Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, for registration of a criminal case, on the basis whereof the FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered by Sukhdev Singh, DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. Thereafter, the raiding party consisting of Mukhtiar Singh, DSP, Kahan Singh, Inspector, Jit Singh HC, Ram Narain complainant and Rup Ram, shadow witness started from the office of the Vigilance Bureau Mansa and reached the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Mansa, where from Gurpreet Singh, Clerk was joined with the said party. Gurpreet Singh was apprised of the facts and circumstances of the case and was introduced to Ram Narain and Rup Ram. Thereafter the raiding party reached the grain Market, Sardulgarh. The jeep was parked under the shed of Grain Market. Ram Narain, complainant and Rup Ram, shadow witness were sent on foot to the office of Surinder Singh Patwari, accused. Mukhtiar Singh, DSP along with the remaining members of the raiding party stood in concealment near the shops. After some time, Rup Ram came to the turning of the lane and gave the promised signal by stirring his hand on his head. Thereafter the DSP Mukhtiar Singh, along with other members of the raiding party, went to the office of Surinder Singh Patwari. Surinder Singh Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -5- Patwari was found doing the work in his office. Towards the gate of the office of the accused, Ram Narain was sitting on a bench and inside the office of the accused, Chhotu Ram was found sitting on a chair. The DSP introduced himself to the accused. The accused was asked that proceedings were to be conducted against him. The tumbler was fetched and a mixture of sodium carbonate with water was prepared therein. In the first instance, the fingers of the hands of Gurprit Singh, PW were got dipped turn by turn in that solution, as a result whereof the colour of solution remained white and did not change. Thereafter, the fingers of the hands of the accused were got dipped in that solution turn by turn, as a result whereof the colour of the solution turned into light pinkish. Thereafter, the solution was put into nip Ex.P-1, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'MS' of Mukhtiar Singh, DSP, and the signatory chit of Gurprit Singh was affixed thereto. The nip Ex.P1 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PG, attested by Ram Narain, Rup Ram, Chhotu Ram and Gurprit Singh, prosecution witnesses. When the thick bed sheet (Khes) from the wooden bench (Takhat posh) lying in front of the accused in his office was lifted, seven tainted currency notes of Rs.100/- each, were recovered. The numbers of those tainted currency notes were got compared through Gurprit Singh prosecution witness, with the numbers of the notes mentioned in memo Ex.P.F. and the same tallied. Thereafter, the tainted currency notes Ex.P2 to P8 were taken Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -6- into possession vide memo Ex.PH, attested by the aforesaid witnesses. Thereafter, a separate solution in clean glass tumbler of sodium carbonate was prepared, the colour whereof was white. The portion of the thick bed sheet (Khes) underneath the tainted currency notes were lying and where from the same were recovered, was dipped into that solution, the colour whereof turned into light pinkish. The solution was put into nip P-9, sealed by Mukhtiar Singh DSP with his seal and the signatory slip of Gurprit Singh was attached thereto. The parcel of thick bed sheet (Khes) P-10 was prepared, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'MS' belonging to Mukhtiar Singh, DSP and the signatory slip of Gurprit Singh, prosecution witness was also attached thereto. Nip Ex.P-9 and the parcel of thick bed sheet (Khes) P10, were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ, attested by the aforesaid witnesses. From the wooden bench (Takhat posh) which was being used by the accused as a table. Roznamcha Wakiti P11, receipt book PO, in which receipt No.38 was still being written, jama bandi for the year 1992-93, P13, and Kar Gujari register P12, were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK, attested by the aforesaid witnesses. Mukhtiar Singh, DSP appended his endorsement on receipt No.38 and attested the same. Endorsement made by him is PO/2. Thereafter, Ram Narain produced before DSP Mukhtiar Singh, a copy of jamabandi having been prepared by the accused, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM, attested by the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -7- witnesses. The jamabandi is Ex.PN. Thereafter, further search of the accused was conducted. A sum of Rs.995.50/-, a note book, a pen, one spectacle, one wrist watch and one identity card were recovered from him, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL, attested by the aforesaid witnesses and signed by the accused. The site was inspected and the site plan Ex.PT was prepared, with correct marginal notes. The accused was arrested. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. On reaching the office of the Vigilance Bureau, Mansa, the accused was got detained in P.S.City, Mansa and the case property was detained by the DSP. On the next day, Darshan Singh constable was entrusted the case property for deposit in P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. After the completion of investigation and after obtaining the sanction for launching prosecution against the accused, challan under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was presented against the accused.
3. Accused-appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused-appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses, viz., MHC Sukhbir Singh as PW1, Constable Darshan Singh as PW2, complainant Ram Narain as PW3, Rup Ram, the shadow witness, as PW4, Surinder Pal, Sadar Kanungo as PW5, Constable Des Raj as PW6, Gopal Singh, Office Kanungo as PW7, Gurprit Singh, Clerk, office of ADC (D), Mansa as PW8, Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -8- DSP Mukhtiar Singh as PW9 and Ghisa Ram as PW10.
5. Sukhbir Singh, PW1, Constable Darshan Singh, PW2, Constable Des Raj, PW6, Gopal Singh, PW7 and Ghisa Ram, PW10 are material witnesses. Ram Narain, PW3, is the complainant and Rup Ram, PW4, is the shadow witness and their testimony also stand mentioned in the facts stated above. Gurprit Singh, PW8, is the recovery witness. DSP Mukhtiar Singh, PW9, is the Investigating Officer of the case. Surinder Pal, Kanungo, PW5 has proved the posting order of the accused-appellant and also proved the sanction, Exhibit PB, accorded in this case by the District Magistrate for launching the prosecution against him.
6. Statement of the accused-appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. The accused - appellant stated that complainant Ram Narain was annoyed with him as he (Ram Narain) blamed that he had wrongly mentioned the name of his grand-father in the revenue record and on 29.5.1997, he quarrelled with him and threatened him. Accused - appellant further stated that he made an entry in this respect in roznamcha wakiati to bring to the notice of the higher Officers for taking appropriate action and that he had also brought to the notice of Ram Narain who was not satisfied. Accused-appellant further stated that apprehending hurdle in getting his land sold or mortgaged, the complainant involved him in a false case by putting the tainted currency notes on Khes through Chhotu Ram. He also stated that he brought the report dated 29.5.1997 to the notice of the DSP at the time of raid. Accused-appellant further stated that Chhotu Ram was also the person of complainant Ram Narain and they all conspired together to falsely Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -9- implicate him in the case and he had not demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant. He also stated in his statement that he was falsely implicated in this case on account of the aforesaid quarrel with Ram Narain and for greed of Rs.25,000/- which the complainant had taken as reward through the Vigilance Department for involving him in this case.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed in para No.1 of this judgment.
8. Hence this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the raid was conducted on 2.6.1997 at about 2.30 p.m. Complainant Ram Narain @ Raja Ram-PW3, Roop Ram-PW4 and official witness Gurprit Singh, Clerk A.D.C. (Development), PW8, were the members of the raiding party. Roop Ram was made a shadow witness. Chhotu Ram son of Uma Ram was an independent and also present at the time of raid and all the proceedings were conducted in his presence, however, he was not examined, as such, his non- examination makes the story of the prosecution doubtful. Learned counsel has further submitted that complainant Ram Narain, the shadow witness, Roop Ram and Ghisa Ram, Sarpanch, PW10, belong to the same village. In cross examination, Ghisa Ram, PW10, has admitted that they were known to each other since birth and a house intervened in between their houses and both of them were from the same caste. Thus, the learned counsel has argued that as far as the demand of bribe and its acceptance is concerned, there is sole evidence of highly interested witnesses, namely, Ram Narain and Roop Ram. The third independent witness Chhotu Ram was not examined. He has further argued that the complainant in a bribe case is an Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -10- accomplice, who agrees to pay bribe and if the shadow witness happens to be a friend of the complainant, in such an eventuality, an inference can be drawn that he is not providing any independent corroboration to the testimony of the complainant.
10. Ram Narain, PW3, in his cross-examination conducted on 19.5.1999, at the opening page of cross-examination, stated as under:
"My father died in 1994 in the month of June and the date was 5th of June. Mutation of his inheritance was not got entered by me. Momen Ram, Lambardar got entered mutation of my father. I did not come to know that the mutation was got entered in favour of our 4 brothers and 2 sisters. It is wrong to suggest that I approached the Patwari that the names of my sisters be deleted as there was Will in the name of sons of the deceased. It is wrong to suggest that the Patwari demanded Will from me. It is wrong to suggest that I could not produce any Will before the Patwari. I do not know that the Tehsildar came to our village twice for attestation of mutation. I do not know as to whether the Tehsildar did not attest the mutation. I do not know as to whether I did not appear before the Tehsildar twice and on third day, the mutation was rejected. It is wrong to suggest that on 24.4.1996, the mutation was rejected by Tehsildar. It is wrong to suggest that we had a grudge against the Patwari and that he got the mutation rejected intentionally......................... before registration of case, some of documents I was mentioned as Ram Narain alias Raja Ram...................... I do not know as to whether in Khata No.131 Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -11- my name was recorded as Ram Narain and in another Khata my name is recorded as Raja Ram. In some of the revenue record, name of my grand father is recorded as Hukma. I do not know as to whether the name of my grandfather is mentioned as Hukma and the same be corrected. I do not know as to whether Farad Badar had not been accepted till registration of case. Thus, the complainant was annoyed with the appellant because of the two things; (i) the mutation of inheritance of his father was not sanctioned in his name and (ii) that his name and that of his grandfather was not correctly recorded in some of the revenue record. Complainant had quarrelled with the appellant on 29.5.1997. A report No.430 dated 29.5.1997, Ex.DB, which was signed by the DSP Mukhtiar Singh on 2.6.1997 at the time of the raid and was also taken into possession by the DSP vide Seizure Memo Ex.PK. This report has also been mentioned somewhere as Ex.P11 (Ex..PB and Ex.P11 is the one and same thing). A true translation of that report is as follows:
"Today, Ram Narain son of Birbal came to the office in the village itself, threatened that their record has been wrongly prepared and that we will see you. Ram Narain was apprised that at the time of preparation of 5 years jamabandi (record of rights) there happened to be an inadvertent mistake and thereafter the wrong entries continuing and that a Fard Badar has been prepared and previously too copies have been given but complainant Ram Narain threatened that they know how to deal Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -12- illegally and that on this report ..... was entered. It has been further mentioned in this report that Ram Chand Chowkidar tried to intervene and thereafter Sarpanch, who was present, also tried to intervene and pacify that the entries will be corrected. It has been further mentioned in this respect that without any reason Ram Narain threatened and as such a report was incorporated."
11. In view of the cross-examination of Ram Narain, learned counsel has stated that keeping in view the inimical back ground the accused- appellant would not demand and accept illegal gratification from Ram Narain. The first demand was allegedly made by Ram Narain alone. However, as per prosecution version, at the time of acceptance, Roop Ram, the shadow witness, and one Chhotu Ram of the same village were also sitting there. Therefore, the learned counsel has argued that it is very improbable that the accused-appellant would demand and accept Rs.700/- in full public view.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the accused-appellant was not caught red-handed as is made out from the statement of Ram Narain, PW3, who in his examination-in-chief, has specifically stated that DSP Mukhtiar Singh, PW9, asked him as to where the accused had concealed the money, whereupon he (Ram Narain) pointed out the place of recovery. DSP thereafter lifted those currency notes from underneath the Khes (thick big cloth) spread on the Takht posh. Roop Ram, PW4, has also made the similar statement, whereas, the independent witness Gurprit Singh, PW8 stated in his examination-in-chief that the currency Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -13- notes were lying on the Khes which was spread on the Takht posh. DSP Mukhtiar Singh, PW9, stated that when the Khes on the Takht posh lying in front of the accused-appellant was lifted, then seven tainted currency notes of Rs.100/- each were recovered. Thereafter, DSP Mukhtiar Singh introduced himself to the accused-appellant and asked the father of the accused to bring glass of water for hand wash of Gurprit Singh and then sample of the accused-appellant was obtained. The water was put into a plastic nip, seal was taken into possession and thereafter the DSP did not make any effort to recover the money. As per the complainant and Chhotu Ram, it is the complainant Ram Narain who told where the money was lying. The DSP had not asked the accused-appellant as to where the money was lying. The learned counsel has argued that it was so done on account of the fact that because the DSP knew that the accused-appellant was not aware as to where the money was kept. The DSP has enquired from a person only who knew as to where the bribe money had been kept. In this background, learned counsel has argued that the complainant went to Patwari, obtained a copy of jamabandi and concealed the tainted notes under the Khes from where the same were recovered.
13. It is further argued that from the record, it is made out that Fard Badar was entered by the Patwari which was further signed by the Kanungo, but not sanctioned by the Tehsildar. The accused-appellant has specifically conveyed to the DSP regarding the Fard Badar. A note in this regard was entered in the case diary. As per the report, the name of grand- father of the complainant was wrongly mentioned in the revenue record and a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the complainant on 29.5.1997. This fact was also gone into by the DSP Mukhtiar Singh at the Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -14- time of raid. The learned counsel has stated that from the admission of the DSP regarding Fard Badar, which was produced before the DSP as a documentary proof i.e. report No.430, Exhibit DB, is proved. In the circumstances, when there was earlier quarrel between the accused- appellant and the complainant, the accused-appellant would not have demanded any bribe from such a person. He has further stated that an effort has been made by the prosecution agency to watch the impact of the report with the examination of Ghisa Ram, PW10, who has stated that no report was shown to him and Shri Ram Chand, Chowkidar with regard to any threat given by Ram Narain to the accused-appellant. He has further stated that he has no friendship with Ram Narain or Roop Ram. In fact, the complainant was not in a sound financial position. He wanted to mortgage his ancestral land to raise money for domestic expenses. Learned counsel further stated that the complainant had no animosity with the accused- appellant for the reasons that the appellant did not oblige him and that he was led by a greed of reward of Rs.25,000/- announced by the State of Punjab which he has admitted.
14. Learned counsel for the State has argued that case of the prosecution is fully established. The accused-appellant was caught red- handed by the raiding party led by DSP Mukhtiar Singh. The tainted money was recovered from the accused-appellant.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
16. From the evidence on record, it is established that one Chhotu Ram son of Uma Ram, resident of village Khaira Khurd was present when the raid was conducted and also when the proceedings were recorded. Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -15- However, said Chhotu Ram, who is the only independent witness, has not been examined in the present case.
17. From Exhibit DB, it is proved on record that the appellant refused to oblige the complainant with regard to correction of the revenue record. The quarrel between the appellant and the complainant is also proved on record. In the circumstances, it is highly improbable to believe that anybody would demand bribe from the person with whom he had a quarrel in the past and having inimical terms. These entire facts are admitted completely and are part of the record. The Fard Badar was taken into possession by the DSP Mukhtiar Singh at the spot, therefore, there is no possibility of any subsequent entry in the Fard Badar by the appellant.
18. It has come on record that Ram Narain and Ghisa Ram are from the same village and residing in the same vicinity. They are known to each other since their childhood. The very unusual stand of Ghisa Ram, PW10, is that he had no friendship with Ram Narain, also further erodes the credibility of his testimony.
19. There are different versions of the members of raiding party as regards the recovery of the tainted money. The appellant in the instant case was not caught red handed while accepting bribe. There is nothing on record to establish the factum of demand of bribe and the acceptance thereof. Ram Narain, PW3, has stated that he had pointed out to the DSP as to where the accused-appellant had concealed the money. Thereafter, DSP lifted the tainted notes from underneath the Khes spread over the Takht posh. Roop Ram, PW4, has also made the similar statement. However, the independent witness Gurprit Singh, PW8 has stated in his cross- examination that the currency notes were lying on the Khes which was Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -16- spread over Takht posh. From these facts, it is established that the alleged tainted money was not recovered from the accused nor the accused- appellant was put to disclose as to where he had concealed the said tainted money. Rather, the DSP, on being pointed out by the complainant, had recovered the alleged tainted money. There are contradictions in the statements of Ram Narain, PW3 and Gurprit Singh, PW8, about the fact as to whether the alleged tainted money was lying on the Khes or underneath it. Therefore, the contradictions in the statements of Ram Narain, PW3, independent witness Gurprit Singh, PW8 and DSP Mukhtiar Singh, PW9 are material contradictions and cast a serious doubt on the veracity of truthfulness of the alleged incident of demanding and accepting bribe by the appellant from the complainant.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M.K.Harshan v. State of Kerala, 1997(2) RCR 16 has observed in para 9 as under:
"It may be mentioned here that within two days i.e. on 29.6.83, the appellant addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police. Cochin, giving out all the details of the work he had been attending to on 27.6.83 right from the morning to evening. In support of his plea he has also relied upon on the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 as well as the admissions made by PW4 who is no other than an Assistant in the Office. The Dy.S.P. PW-11 as well as PW-1 admitted in their depositions that the accused immediately, when the trap party confronted him, came forward with the plea that he did not receive any bribe and also denied having any knowledge of any such bribe as well as the knowledge of PW-1. PW-11 also admitted in cross- examination that any person who had access to the room of accused could put anything in the drawer of the table. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to place implicit reliance on the evidence of PW-1 to hold that the accused obtained illegal Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -17- gratification in the manner spoken to by him and that at his instance PW-1 placed the money in the drawer of the table. By preponderance of probabilities, the accused has sufficiently shown that the plea put forward by him, namely, that in his absence somebody else might have put the tainted money in his drawer, is plausible. Further, we are at a loss to understand as to why the Dy.S.P. asked the accused to touch the currency notes and then made him dip his fingers in the solution. This also creates some suspicious so far as the version of PW-1 is concerned, namely, that at the instance of the accused he put the currency notes in the drawer, which circumstance is vital and decisive in this case."
20. From the entry made by the accused-appellant in the Fard Badar register, it is clearly established that some quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the complainant. The appellant had refused to oblige the complainant with regard to making certain corrections in the revenue record. This fact is duly proved from the entry, Exhibit DB, made by the appellant in Fard Badar register. The said register was taken into possession by the DSP, therefore, there is hardly any possibility that the entry was made by the appellant in the register with regard to the incident after the occurrence.
21. In the light of above discussions, I find that the demand and acceptance of bribe is not proved on record. There are material contradictions with regard to the place of recovery of the tainted money. Certainly, the appellant was not caught red handed. This also cannot be believed that a person with whom the appellant previously had a quarrel, and this finds duly recorded in the register, a demand of illegal bribe/gratification would be made from the same person.
22. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment Criminal Appeal No.317-SB of 2000 -18- and order passed by the learned Trial Court on 15.3.2000 are set aside. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
July 30, 2010 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No