Hoshiar Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

The appellant Hoshiar Singh, son of Kalu Ram, faced trial under Section 13(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for having received a sum of Rs. 2000/ as illegal gratification from Buta Singh on 21.3.1990, while he (appellant) was working as a Tehsil Welfare Officer, Jind. The learned Additional Sessions JudgeI, Jind, accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay Rs. 2000/ as fine and in default to undergo R.I. for three months. The case of the prosecution briefly is as follows :

The Government of Haryana had decided to confer proprietary rights on pattedars of certain lands. The complainant, Buta Singh (P.W.6), who is also one of the pattedars approached the appellantHoshiar Singh, who was working as a Tehsil Welfare Officer, Jind, for the purpose of getting the numbers of the land that was under the cultivation of Buta Singh PW so that he could apply and get ownership. Hoshiar Singh is alleged to have demanded Rs. 2,000/ as illegal gratification for giving the numbers. Buta Singh PW mentioned this to Sucha Singh (P.W.8) who incidentally was also one of the pattedars intending to get proprietary rights in respect of some lands. On the next day, Buta Singh and Sucha Singh PWs went to the Vigilance Inspector Prakash Chand (P.W.11) and Buta Singh gave a statement (Ex.PA) which was recorded by him (P.W.11). Buta Singh also gave Rs. 2,000/ in currency notes to the Vigilance Inspector PW11 and the numbers of these notes were also recorded in the statement Ex.P.A. This statement of Buta Singh (Ex.P.A.), with the endorsement of the Vigilance Inspector, was sent to Police Station S.V.B. Hissar on the basis of which a formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) was recorded. The Vigilance Inspector (P.W.11) got the currency notes under memo Ex.PL, attested by Buta Singh and Sucha Singh PWs. Vigilance Inspector filed an application before District Magistrate Jind for deploying an officer for conducting a raid. Narinder Kumar Singla, City Magistrate, Jind (P.W.10) was nominated by the District Magistrate. The Vigilance Inspector apprised Mr. Singla of these facts.

According to the prosecution, the Vigilance Inspector (P.W.11) gave a demonstration to Messrs Singla, Sucha Singh, and Buta Singh PWs by treating phenolphthalein powder on a piece of paper and then washing it with sodium carbonate water. The Vigilance Inspector put his initials on the 20 currency notes and handed over the same to Buta Singh. Sucha Singh was deployed as a shadow witness. They went towards the office where the appellant Hoshiar Singh worked and stopped the jeep at a distance. Buta Singh PW was asked to give a signal after paying the money to the appellant. Buta Singh went inside the office and after some time, he along with the appellantHoshiar Singh went on a cycle rickshaw. They were followed by the raiding party. Near about the bus stand, Hoshiar Singh received the money from Buta Singh PW. Buta Singh gave a signal to Sucha Singh who, in turn, gave the signal to the raiding party. AppellantHoshiar Singh was arrested. He was searched and the sum of Rs. 2,000/ with the initials of the Vigilance Inspector, was seized from him. The hands of the appellant, the currency notes and a pocket of the pant of the appellant (into which he had put the money) were washed with sodium carbonate and the colour of the water turned pink.

In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW6 is the complainant Buta Singh, PW8 is a shadow witness Sucha Singh, PW10 is the City Magistrate, Mr. Singla and PW11 is the Vigilance InspectorParkash Chand, who are important among them. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, aggrieved by which the appellant has come forward with this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence led by the prosecution is discrepant and unreliable. According to him, there should be clear proof of not only demand on the part of the appellantHoshiar Singh but also of the receipt of money as illegal gratification. He contends that there is no satisfactory evidence with regard to both, and that the appellant could not be convicted merely on the basis of the alleged recovery of the money from him. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant in this respect.

The case of the prosecution is that on the first day, i.e. 20.3.1990, Buta Singh PW, went to the office of the appellantHoshiar Singh and requested him to give the survey numbers of the lands in his (P.W.6) possession so that he may apply for and acquire ownership. The appellantHoshiar Singh is alleged to have demanded Rs. 2,000/ as illegal gratification for giving the numbers of those lands. Sucha Singh PW is also alleged to have gone to that office on 20.3.1990 to make enquiries about the conferment of proprietary rights or him as well and there he is alleged to have met Buta Singh PW6. Buta Singh is alleged to have informed Sucha Singh about this. On the next day, i.e. 21.3.1990 Buta Singh and Sucha Singh PWs are alleged to have gone to the Vigilance Inspector (PW11) and it is thereafter that the trap was laid, as mentioned earlier. The evidence of Buta Singh, in the course of examinationinchief, is that he went to the appellantHoshiar Singh for getting the survey numbers, that the appellant demanded Rs. 2,000/ as bribe for giving the numbers, that he informed about this to Sucha Singh PW and that on the next day both of them went to the Vigilance Inspector, informed him about this illegal demand by the appellant. He also stated that he gave the currency notes (Rs. 2,000/) to the Vigilance Inspector. But, thereafter Buta Singh PW started giving prevaricating answers. Even during the course of examinationinchief, he stated that the currency notes were of the denomination of Rs. 100/ and 50/, whereas, according to the prosecution Exs.P3 to P22 which were allegedly given by Buta Singh PW to the appellantHoshiar Singh and which were allegedly recovered from him were 20 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each. PW Buta Singh further stated that he did not know if the Inspector had noted down the numbers of the currency notes, and that he also did not record his statement though he obtained his thumb impression on some paper. Further, in the course of the examinationinchief, Buta Singh PW stated that the appellant took him in a cycle rickshaw to the bus stand; that the police party had also followed him; that he gave Rs. 2,000/ to the appellant which the appellant accepted; that Sucha Singh PW6 gave the signal to the Police that the Vigilance Inspector and the City Magistrate came and overpowered the appellant and that by that time, the appellant had put the currency notes in the pocket of his trousers. But, even during the course of examinationinchief, Buta Singh PW stated that the police did not get the hands of the accused washed; that they did not wash the currency notes with carbonate water in his presence. The prosecution treated him as a hostile witness and crossexamined him. He denied the suggestion by the prosecution that the hands of the appellant were washed and the colour of the water became pink, or that the said water was taken into possession. Of course, he stated that the same notes which he had given first to the Inspector and then to the accusedappellant were recovered from him, but denied the suggestion that the recovered currency notes were washed and the colour of the water turned pink. Later on, he again shifted his stand and stated that he could not say whether Exs. P3 to P22 were the same currency notes which he had given to the appellant as the bribe. In crossexamination by the defence, he stated that the appellant had demanded the money after taking him outside the office, and that he told Sucha Singh PW about this demand only on the next day, and that too in the village where he had met him in the street by chance, whereas the case of the prosecution is that the alleged demand by the appellant was in the office and that Buta Singh PW had informed Sucha Singh PW about this alleged demand on the very same day. It is not as if Buta Singh PW informed Sucha Singh PW only on the next day and that too, in the village.

Further, Buta Singh PW also stated that he borrowed this money from Sucha Singh PW that Sucha Singh handed over the money to him on way to the office of the appellant; that he counted the money, that they were the currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 20, 50 and 100; that he had gone to give the money to Hoshiar Singh (appellant) alone; that he handed over the money to Hoshiar Singh, and that no official of his office was present. Sucha Singh PW stated in his evidence that Buta Singh informed him about the alleged demand by the appellant on the same day, though, he stated that the said information was given to him in the village. He also stated that on the next day, Buta Singh asked him to make arrangement for Rs. 2,000/ for paying it to Hoshiar Singh; but, Buta Singh himself made arrangement for Rs. 2,000/ and that he had not paid the same to him. He also stated that both of them later met at the Jind Bus Stand where, Buta Singh told him that Rs. 2,000/ had been paid by him to the appellant. I find that the evidence of these witnesses is totally unsatisfactory and contrary to the case of the prosecution. To a specific question put by the Court, Buta Singh PW answered that none was present in the office at the time where the money was given. Therefore, we find inconsistencies between the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW6 and PW8. While the case of the prosecution is that the money was paid somewhere near the Bus Stand Jind, PW6 Buta Singh stated as if the money was paid to Hoshiar Singh appellant at his office itself. We find varying versions of Buta Singh himself as to the denomination of the currency notes.

He denied knowledge about the hands of appellant being washed, and the water turning pink and also about the washing of the currency notes and the water turning pink on such a wash. He denied that Exs.P3 to P22 are the currency notes given by him to the appellant. He also stated that no statement was recorded in his presence though, his thumb impression was taken. While he stated that he got the money from Sucha Singh PW8, the latter stated that Buta Singh PW himself had arranged the money,

Apart from these inconsistencies, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.3.1990 Buta Singh and Sucha Singh PW met the Vigilance Inspector Prakash Chand (PW11) and narrated about the alleged demand. They are alleged to have given Rs. 2,000/ to the Vigilance Inspector; and the Vigilance Inspector is stated to have marked his initials on these currency notes and that they were later on given by Buta Singh PW to appellantHoshiar Singh. But, the evidence of Buta Singh PW is that he and Sucha Singh went to the office of the appellant; that he (P.W.6) met and paid the money to the appellant. It is not as if they gave the money to the Vigilance Inspector (P.W.11), or that the Inspector marked his initials on the currency notes, and then gave them to Buta Singh PW, before he handed over the money to the appellant. Sucha Singh PW specifically denied that Buta Singh had handed over the currency notes to the Inspector; that the Inspector took them into his possession, and that the said currency notes are Ex.P.3 to P.22. He denied that he was even deputed as a shadow witness. He also denied that the appellant had put the money in his trousers'' pocket, and that after apprehending him, his hands were washed, or that the currency notes were recovered from his pocket or that the said currency notes were also washed with sodium carbonate water. Sucha Singh PW had even stated that on 20.3.1990, appellant Hoshiar Singh had not demanded any money from Buta Singh PW and that Hoshiar Singh had only asked Buta Singh to come on the next day. Therefore, we find from all the above that the evidence of the complainant PW6 and that of the alleged shadow witnessesPW.8 is not only contrary to the case of the prosecution but is also mutually contradictory. Their evidence is totally unreliable and no conviction can be based upon such an unreliable evidence.

One other factor which also casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution is the evidence of Buta Singh PW that he had already filed an application before the Tehsildar for conferring proprietary rights and that the papers were in that office, and that he had gone to the appellantHoshiar Singh to ask for patta numbers. He also stated that the original record with regard to Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi are with the Patwari. Therefore, in these circumstances, to say that Buta Singh PW went and asked the appellant herein for the survey numbers, and that the appellant made a demand for Rs. 2,000/ as illegal gratification for furnishing the information is improbable.

The evidence of Buta Singh and Sucha Singh PWs are totally unacceptable. Even if I am to hold, relying on the evidence of the Vigilance Inspector (P.W.11) and the City Magistrate (P.W.10) that the money was recovered from the appellant, that alone cannot form the basis of conviction. In the circumstances, I find that there is no satisfactory evidence with regard to the alleged demand and receipt of illegal gratification by the appellant. I, therefore, find that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and has to be acquitted. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed against him. The appellant is acquitted. The fine, if any, paid by him will be refunded.