Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjiv Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRA No.S-2389-SB of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(415)
CRA No.S-2389-SB of 2004
Date of decision: 19.12.2013.
Sanjiv Kumar
......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dilpreet Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. G.S. Khandewad, DAG, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.33 dated 02.03.1999 under Sections 7, 8 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'PC Act'), registered at Police Station City, Hoshiarpur.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the brother of the appellant was arrested in FIR No.32 dated 02.03.1999 under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') read with Section 8, 9-B, 9-D and 45 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short 'FERA Act') registered at Police Station Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-2389-SB of 2004 -2- City, Hoshiarpur. While the complainant-Naresh Kumar was interrogating Anoop Kumar, brother of the appellant, he was offered ` 50,000/- as bribe by the appellant. Currency notes in the denomination of ` 100/- each in five bundles of ` 10,000/- each were taken in possession on the basis of rukka sent by Naresh Kumar and a formal FIR was registered against the appellant.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 7/8 read with Section 12 of the PC Act.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses.
Appellant when examined under 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded that he was innocent.
Appellant examined two witnesses in his defence. Vide judgment/order dated 26.10.2004, trial court ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 12 read with Section 7 of the PC Act. Hence, the present appeal.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that false FIR had been registered against the brother of the appellant and the same was later cancelled. In fact, two FIRs were registered against Anoop Kumar and the appellant, almost at the same time. In fact, Anoop Kumar was in possession of Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-2389-SB of 2004 -3- ` 3,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, FIR No.32 dated 02.03.1999 under Sections 411 and 414, IPC and Sections 8, 9-B, 9-D and 45 of the FERA Act, 1973 was registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur against the brother of the appellant and recovery in the said case was shown to the tune of ` 2,50,000/- and appellant was falsely involved in this case by showing that he had offered ` 50,000/- as bribe to the complainant. The matter was duly inquired by DW-1 Surinderjit Singh Mand and allegations leveled in the present FIR were found to be false vide report Ex.DC.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the complainant had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Appellant was caught while offering bribe to PW-4 Naresh Kumar.
In the present case, admittedly, FIR No.32 dated 02.03.1999 under Sections 411 and 414, IPC and Sections 8, 9-B, 9- D and 45 of the FERA Act, 1973 was registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur against the brother of the appellant. The case of the appellant is that in fact, his brother was carrying ` 3,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, two FIRs were registered by the police. One false FIR was registered against the brother of the appellant to the effect that he was illegally carrying ` 2,50,000/- and ` 50,000/- carried by Anoop Kumar were utilized to falsely involve the appellant in this case.
In this regard, the matter was duly investigated by Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-2389-SB of 2004 -4- DW-1, Deputy Superintendent of Police and he opined that the allegation that Anoop Kumar was carrying one thousand pounds illegally could not be proved because the company was in possession of licence duly granted by Reserve Bank of India for Foreign Exchange. It was also opined that the present case had been verified and it was found that both Anoop Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were arrested at about 10.00/10.30 a.m. near bus stand Hoshiarpur. Inspector Naresh Kumar had stated that appellant had reached immediately at the spot and had offered him ` 50,000/- in cash. The fact that appellant was already carrying ` 50,000/- to offer to Inspector Naresh Kumar immediately after his brother was arrested did not appeal to reason. The time of registration of both the cases was 5.50 a.m. and 7.50 p.m. respectively. Both the brothers were arrested around the same time, hence allegations, leveled against the appellant were found to be false.
In the present case, admittedly, Inspector Naresh Kumar while appearing in the witness-box as PW-4 in his cross- examination admitted that it had not transpired during investigation of FIR No.32 dated 02.03.1999 under Sections 411 and 414, IPC and Sections 8, 9-B, 9-D and 45 of the FERA Act registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur that currency involved in the said case was stolen property. During investigation of the said case, accused had produced before him the record that he was having a licence to deal with the foreign exchange and Indian currency and on the basis of Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-2389-SB of 2004 -5- the letter received from Chief Enforcement Officer of Foreign Exchange Management, Government of India dated 28.08.2001, FIR No.32 dated 02.03.1999 under Sections 411 and 414, IPC and Sections 8, 9-B, 9-D and 45 of the FERA Act registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur was cancelled. He also admitted that there was an entry in the present case by Deputy Superintendent of Police that the present case be also signed as untraced.
Thus, in the present case, during investigation by DW-1, it had transpired that Anoop Kumar was working as Director OMEGA Foreign Exchange Private Limited, Hoshiarpur and appellant was working with him. Anoop Kumar was having a valid licence for Foreign Exchange duly granted by Reserve Bank of India. It also transpired during the inquiry conducted by DW-1 that Anoop Kumar was carrying ` 3,00,000/- which were to be deposited in the bank to open a new account on behalf of the company. In these circumstances, the plea taken by appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. gains significance. Moreover, FIR registered against the brother of the appellant was also later cancelled. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is probable that the appellant might have been falsely involved in this case along with his brother by registering two separate FIRs. Appellant as well as his brother were arrested around the same time and therefore, DW-1 rightly came to the conclusion that it could not be believed that within such a short span, appellant could have brought ` 50,000/- with him to be Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-2389-SB of 2004 -6- offered to PW-4.
An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, in the present case, prosecution story is doubtful.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Consequently, judgment/order of conviction by the trial court are set aside.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 19, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.12.21 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document