Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(350)
CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003
Date of decision: 14.11.2013.
Rattan Kumar
......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. G.S. Khandewad, DAG, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.19 dated 30.03.1998 under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'Act'), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.
Prosecution story, in brief is that Ishar Singh had deposited security for electric connection in the year 1986. Demand notice was received by Ishar Singh from the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short 'PSEB') and the last date in this regard was 30.03.1998. Since Ishar Singh was an old man and was unable to Sandeep Sethi 2013.11.21 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003 -2- pursue the application, complainant Maghar Singh, on behalf of his father, completed necessary formalites. On 26.03.1998, complainant along with all the necessary papers met the appellant. Appellant demanded ` 2,000/- by way of bribe. The matter was settled at ` 1,000/-. On 30.03.1998, complainant along with Shamsher Singh went to the office of Vigilance Bureau. Deputy Superintendent of Police ('DSP' for short) Narinderpal Kaushal recorded the statement of the complainant and on the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered. Complainant handed over two currency notes in the denomination of ` 500 each to the DSP who returned the same to the complainant after application of Phenolphthalein Powder ('P. Powder for short') and instructed the complainant to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. Demonstration of working of P. Powder was shown to the witnesses. Thereafter, a raid was organized. Shamsher Singh was deputed to act as a shadow witness and was instructed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant. Bawa Singh was joined as an official witness. Complainant and shadow witness then went inside the office of the appellant. Appellant demanded the bribe money from the complainant. Then complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant and he kept the same in his shirt pocket and signed the test report. Complainant deposited the requisite fee. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with the remaining members of the raiding party reached the Sandeep Sethi 2013.11.21 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003 -3- spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in possession. When the shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was also put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in possession.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented.
Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Act.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses in its defence.
Appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') after the close of prosecution evidence prayed that he was innocent.
Appellant examined two witnesses in his defence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. Learned counsel has laid stress on the fact that as per the complainant, appellant had signed the test report but a perusal of the same reveals that it had not been singed by the appellant. In fact, the appellant had no motive to demand bribe from the complainant as the appellant was not required to deal with the file of the complainant. Sandeep Sethi 2013.11.21 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003 -4- In fact, the file was to be dealt with by the Junior Engineer, as per the Instructions of the PSEB. Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant could not be convicted merely on the basis of the statement of the complainant. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Raghu Nath Bansal Vs. State of Punjab 2010 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 445 wherein it was held that mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused was not sufficient to order his conviction under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Act. Similar view was taken by this Court in Amrit Lal Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 796, Anand Parkash Vs. State of Haryana 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 335, Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 608 and Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 892.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Appellant was caught red-handed while accepting bribe.
Complainant Maghar Singh while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2 deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Statement of the complainant inspires confidence. The said witness had no ill-will against the appellant to have falsely involved him in this case. Complainant was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel but his testimony qua demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant and its recovery from the appellant in the raid could not be shattered. Shadow witness Shamsher Singh appeared in the Sandeep Sethi 2013.11.21 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003 -5- witness-box as PW-7 and did not support the prosecution case.
Bawa Singh official witness was examined as PW-6. The said witness deposed that on receipt of signal from the shadow witness, they had entered the office of the appellant. DSP had caught hold of the appellant from his arm and had disclosed his identity to the appellant. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the left shirt pocket of the appellant. When the shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution, colour of the solution turned pink. In his cross-examination, the witness categorically deposed that the DSP did not shake hands with the appellant when he gave his introduction. DSP while appearing in the witness-box as PW-11 has corroborated the statement of the official witness qua recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant.
Thus, in the present case, from the statements of the complainant and official witnesses PW-6 and DSP PW-11, it stands duly established that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant. Complainant had categorically deposed that he had handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand and the appellant had kept the same in his shirt pocket. The fact that the hand-wash as well as pocket wash of the appellant had turned the colour of sodium carbonate solution to pink leads to the inference that the appellant Sandeep Sethi 2013.11.21 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003 -6- had dealt with the tainted currency notes. The fact that as per the circular Exhibit DW-2/A of PSEB, Junior Engineer was to verify the test report in itself, is not sufficient to hold that the appellant had no reason to demand bribe from the complainant. Appellant was working was a Sub-Divisional Officer. Complainant had met the appellant with regard to the electric connection sought by his father. Appellant had demanded bribe from the complainant. Complainant had no way of knowing as to whether the appellant was to verify the test report or whether the Junior Engineer was to verify the test report. Although, the complainant had deposed that the appellant had singed the test report and admittedly the test report Mark A does not bear the signatures of the appellant but that fact in itself, is not fatal to the prosecution case. Fact remains that the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting bribe.
The plea taken by the appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had been falsely involved in this case by the DSP is however not established from record. DW-1 Rajbir Singh deposed that the report of the complainant was passed by the Junior Engineer. The estimate was submitted to the Sub- Divisional Officer and then it was sent to the Division for its approval. Rather from the statement of DW-1, it is evident that the appellant was also dealing with electric connection case in question. Hence, the statement of DW-1 fails to advance the case of the appellant.
I have gone through the judgments relied upon by Sandeep Sethi 2013.11.21 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA No.S-684-SB of 2003 -7- learned counsel for the appellant. The said judgments fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on different facts. In the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving its case qua demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant from the complainant and the fact that the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting bribe in a raid organized by Vigilance Bureau.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 14, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.11.21 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document