Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. For the aforesaid reasons the learned Special P.P. submits that the judgment of the trial court ought to be set aside and the accused held guilty of the charges against him.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has hopelessly failed in proving the case against the respondent. It is contended that in the first place the prosecution was not even certain as to for whose loan application the respondent had allegedly demanded the bribe; the case of the prosecution from the very beginning as also in the examination in chief of P.W.9, the complainant was that the loan application was made for the loan of Ram Sagar Singh for purchase of cattle which was sent to the respondent for verification but subsequently in his cross-examination he changed the version stating that the loan application was with respect to both his brothers, Jai Prakash Singh and Ram Sagar Singh and that Ram Sagar Singh had sought loan for a shop and Jai Prakash Singh has also applied for loan for shop. It is further submitted that similarly the IO, PW 6 had initially stated in his cross- examination that the loan application was of Ram Sagar Singh but subsequently, he changed his version stating that it was for Jai Prakash Singh. It is thus urged by learned counsel that it is a serious infirmity as to the very genesis and purpose of the application for loan and the person for whom it was sought. Thereafter, it is submitted by him that Ram Sagar Singh has himself deposed as DW 1 and stated that he had applied and got the loan for Shop in the year 1983 itself; and further that even with respect to Jai Prakash Singh, it has clearly come out in the evidence that his loan application was sent from the Block Office to Kshetriya Gramin Bank as early as on 28.1.1986 and thereafter no further action was required by the Block Office. This fact was known to the applicant and the complainant as well and thus on the date of complaint or verification, no application was pending in the Block Office to the knowledge of the complainant and his brothers. That being the situation, there was no occasion for the respondent to demand from the complainant any bribe for the purpose of forwarding the application from the Block Office to the Bank, which is the earliest stand taken in the complaint filed by him on 19.3.1986.

19. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and the materials on the record. It is evident from the complaint (Ext.8) filed by PW-9 on 19.3.1986 that he speaks of an application on behalf of his brother, and not brothers, who was in the BPL list. The name of the brother is not mentioned but subsequently when PW 4 went for verification on 22.3.1986, it is the complainant's cousin, Ram Sagar Singh who had accompanied the complainant and called the respondent. Again in the report dated 7.4.1986 submitted by PW-6, it is clearly mentioned that the demand of bribe was made with respect to loan application of Ram Sagar Singh. In the examination-in-chief of PW-9 also it was stated that the loan application was of Ram Sagar Singh. Only subsequently in the course of cross- examination the name of Jai Prakash Singh has cropped up as the brother whose application was pending in the Block Office. Again the clear stand in the examination-in-chief of the complainant was that the loan was for the purpose of cattle which was to be accordingly verified by the respondent being the Block Animal Husbandry Officer and for the said purpose he had approached the respondent who thereafter made the demand of bribe. The examination-in-chief of the PW-9 took place on 16.1.1989. Subsequently, in the course of his cross-examination on 30.1.1989 he changed the version and started speaking about the loan application of both Jai Prakash Singh and Ram Sagar Singh and further changed the version that both of them had applied for loan for Shop and not for cattle. The said changing version of the complainant has been correctly noted and referred to by the learned trial court in its judgment. In any case, once the subsequent version is put forward that the loan was for the purpose of grocery shop then there would be no occasion for the respondent to be involved in recommending the said loan. The statements made by the PWs. like the complainant to the contrary has to be treated as false and worthless in the absence of any document brought on the record to show that even in the case of application for loan for shop of grocery the recommendation is required by the Animal Husbandry Officer as on the face of it the same appears to be highly improbable.

20. Similarly, the statement of the Investigating Officer, PW-6 who was also the leader of the raiding party does not inspire any confidence. Firstly, he says that the application was of Ram Sagar Singh, but subsequently he changes his version and says that it was loan application of Jai Prakash Singh.

21. The evidence of DW-1 Ram Sagar Singh, the cousin of the complainant totally demolishes the case of the prosecution that any application for loan with respect to him was pending in the Block Office as he has clearly stated that he had applied and received the loan under the BPL scheme in the year 1983 itself. Nothing has been brought on the record by the prosecution to show that the said statement of DW 1 was false nor any document has been brought on the record by the prosecution to show that any application of Ram Sagar Singh was pending in the Block Office in the year 1986 in support of their stand.