Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. PW Khalil Ahmed Poswal was entrusted the job of laying trap against the accused, pursuant to the direction of SSP vigilance, PW Shakeel Ahmed Bheigh, on 07.11.2009. He has stated that team was constituted. Two Independent witnesses of PHE Mechanical Division, PWs Kuleep Abrol and Sham Lal were also associated with the complainant. The bribe money of Rs. 5,000/- was brought by the complainant as per the direction. The independent witnesses noted down serial numbers of the currency notes, which were 10 in numbers of Rs. 500/- denomination each. Phenolphthalein powder was brought by Constable Rajinder Parihar, with which the currency notes were dusted. A solution of Sodium carbonate was prepared. PW Sham Lal was asked to touch the dusted notes and dip his fingers in the solution, which he did and the solution turned pink. This way, he demonstrated the team members about the reaction of the Phenolphthalein powder on sodium carbonate solution. PW Kuldeep Kumar was kept as shadow witness and he directed him to remain close to the complainant and try to witness the giving and taking of the bribe money. The dusted notes were given to the complainant and he was asked not to touch the notes, until the demand was made by the accused. After the pre- trap proceedings, they proceeded to the office of the accused at Exhibition Ground, Jammu. The complainant followed by Sham Lal proceeded to the room of the accused. PW Kuleep Abrol gave a pre-designed gesture, upon which he along with team members rushed to 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755 the room of the accused. The complainant and PW Sham Lal pointed towards the accused. The complainant told him that accused had demanded the bribe money and he handed over the same to the accused, who accepted it with his right hand and dropped it in his office drawer. The complainant also told him that accused had given him the file. The said file was seized. Upon his direction, the sodium carbonate solution was prepared and when accused dipped his right hand in the solution, it turned pink. The said solution was sealed. PW Sham Lal, recovered the money from the drawer of the accused. The independent witnesses compared serial numbers of the currency notes with the numbers already noted down by them and found that numbers tallied with each other. The accused was arrested. He recorded post-trap proceedings in the presence of witness. In cross- examination, he has stated that he was told by the complainant that accused was demanding money from him. During the trap proceedings, he was standing at a distance of 13 feet away from the office of the accused. However, the shadow witness was staying outside the office of the accused. He did not find any noting of the accused in the file of the complainant. The file did bear the dispatch number of the same day.

18. The accused examined one witness in defence, the relevant excerpt whereof is as below:-

19. DW Tashi Angmo is Senior Assistant in the office of DIC Jammu. She has stated that in October/November 2009, she was working as receipt dispatch clerk in the DIC Office, Jammu. On 07.12.2009, she put dispatch No. 1122/PROV/10809-10 dated 07.12.2009 on registration file of the complainant, issued by the General Manager, DIC on 05.12.2009. The Certificate was received by the unit holder, who signed the dispatch register, as a token of receipt of the 2025:JKLHC-JMU:1755 said file. The witness produced the dispatch register in original in the trial court. The defence witness goes on to state that one Ramesh Kumari, working in the Planning Section at the relevant time, came to her at around 4.00 PM on 07.11.2009 along with the complainant unit holder and requested her to put dispatch number on his certificate. Accordingly, she put the dispatch number. The witness has also produced the attendance register in the trial court, whereby the respondent-accused was on leave on 04.11.2009. In cross-examination, she has stated that she certainly remembers that Ramesh Kumari, met her along with the complainant on 07.11.2009 because Ramesh Kumari was a new appointee.

20. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

21. Learned trial court on critical examination of the evidence led on rival sides has come to conclude that evidence nowhere links the respondent with the process of the file of the complainant and once he was not required to perform any official act regarding registration of the complainant's unit, there was no question of the complainant to have approached the respondent for the performance of such act. 21.1 Learned trail Court found the testimony of defence witness, DW Tashi Angmo, credible who has stated that it was Ramesh Kumari, posted at the relevant time in the planning section of DIC Jammu, who along with the complainant came to her on 07.11.2009 with complainant's file regarding registration of his unit and she was asked to put dispatch number on the registration certificate. Learned trial Court is of the view that the presence of said Ramesh Kumari, clerk in the office of DIC on 07.11.2009, is proved from the evidence of the defence witness and the attendance register of November 2009. 21.2 Learned trail Court is also of the view that once complainant had already received his file from the dispatch clerk, there was no occasion for the complainant to go back to the office of the respondent and pay the bribe.

30.1 It is fortified from the testimony of the solitary defence witness, DW Tashi Angmo who at the relevant time was working as dispatch clerk in the DIC office. She has stated that the complainant along with one Ramesh Kumari, an employee of the planning Section came to her at around 4.00 PM on the day of occurrence. Said Ramesh Kumari was carrying the complainant's file regarding registration of unit and she was asked by said Ramesh Kumari to put dispatch number on the registration certificate, which she did and the complainant put his signatures in the dispatch register as a receipt of acknowledgement. The statement of the sole defence witness, fortifies the claim of the complainant in the trial court that respondent had no role to play or perform any official act in the processing of file regarding registration of the unit of the complainant and that when he went to the office of the respondent on the date of occurrence, the said lady clerk Raj Kumari or Ramesh Kumari was found absent, but he was insisted by the vigilance people to handover the money to whosoever was present in the office and later the complaint EXTP-1 came to be prepared and filed against the respondent, because the tainted money was put in the drawer by the respondent only.