Jai Parkash vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Jai Parkash resident of Malis Patwat Mal Halka Narnaund Was convicted by Special Judge, Hissar, under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He has come up in appeal.

The prosecution story is that Sat Pal (P.W.9) wanted to purchase land of his brother Rajinder (P.W.6). Sat Pal approached the Appellant at Narnaund on 24th December, 1982 and requested him to supply the copy of the Jamabandi in respect of the land. He also wanted to have copy of the mutations as he was told that these were also required for sale. The appellant demanded Rs. 140/ as bribe for supplying the documents. Sat Pal showed some hesitation. The appellant told him that unless he pays Rs. 140/, copies will not be supplied to him. Sat Pal, finding no escape, agreed to pay the amount and it was agreed that the amount will be paid to the appellant at his house in Hansi Town on the following day and after receipt of the amount the documents required would also be handed over to Sat Pal at the same time.

Sat Pal, not feeling happy over the situation approached his friend Dhan Singh (P.W.) at Hissar and told him the whole story. On 25th December, 1982 at about 2 P.M. Sat Pal and Dhan Singh went to Vigilance Officer, Hissar, where they met Inspector Som Nath (P.W.10). Sat Pal made statement Exhibit PC to Inspector Som Nath, and also produced currency notes worth Rs. 140/ The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and after taking search of Sat Pal, these currency notes were handed over to him with the direction to pass these very currency notes to the appellant

Sat Pal, Dhan Singh and the police party then went in Government Car to Hissar where they reached the Rest House at 3.30 P.M. on 25th December, 1982. From there they went to the house of the appellant. The party was headed by Sat Pal followed by Dhan Singh and Dhan Singh followed by the police party. The appellant was not found at his house. They waited there for about an hour. After waiting for an hour, Sat Pal informed the party that the appellant had told him that he would be coming from the Bus Stand side. The party then went towards Bus Stand side and while they were coming at Umra Chowk, the appellant met Sat Pal. Both of them went into the shop of Brown Hair Dresser where Sat Pal paid the money to the appellant. Dhan Singh, who was waiting out side the shop, gave the signal, on receipt of which Inspector Som Nath entered the shop and found the appellant having currency notes in his hand. At that time Sushil Kumar, proprietor of the shop (Brown Hair Dresser) was also present. The currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PD. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers of the notes given to Sat Pal at Hissar. The hands of the appellant were washed in a container, in which Sodium Carbonate powder was put. After stirring the colour of the liquid turned light pink. It was transfered into a nip and was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PE. The person of Sat Pal (P.W.)was also searched and documents Exhibits P.1 to P 3 which, according to him, were given by the appellant, were found. These documents were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PC.

After completing the necessary investigations the challan was submitted against the appellant and after trial he was convicted by the Special Judge.

The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. The appellant after close of the prosecution, when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, did not deny his posting at Narnaund on the relevant date. He, however. denied all other prosecution allegations. He took the Plea of false implication and stated as follows:

"I bad a quarrel with brother of Sat Pal i.e. Rajinder about one and a half months prior to the present incident, Satpal was having litigation with his bhabhi Raj Kumari. Both of them, got documents from me. Rajinder had told me that I should not give documents to her because she was using them in litigation against them. Satpal was also annoyed on this account. I had to give the fards and that is why, I have been implicated in the present case.

In defence the appellant examined these witnesses Mohinder Singh (D.W.1). Jagmail Singh (D.W.2) and Ram Sarup (D.W.3).

I have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel and have heard them at length.

The prosecution case depends upon the testimony of Sat Pal (P.W. 9) i.e. the complainant and two Police Inspectors Ram Chander (P.W.7) and Som Nath (P.W.10). Dhan Singh, shadow witness, has not been examined. Sushil Kumar, owner of the shop known as Brown Hair Dresser, who was also present at the time of the passing of the money and recovery of the money, has also not been examined.

The case of the appellant is that Sat Pal is inimical to him and this case has been planted, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn my attention to the statement of P.W. 5 Kartar Singh. P.W. 5 Kartar Singh is a Patwari also posted at Narnaund. He has stated in his statement that litigation between Sat Pal complainant and his brother''s wife Raj Kumari is going on in civil court. He has further stated that Sat Pal (P.W.) had requested the appellant not to supply the copies of khasras to his brother''s wife so that he may rot be able to file the suit and that the complainant was angry with the appellant as the appellant had supplied copies of the documents to his Bhabi Raj Kumari. Sat Pal complainant (P.W. 9) has admitted that there is litigation going on between him and the wife of his brother named Raj Kumari. This litigation is in civil courts and the suits have been filed by Raj Kumari after obtaining documents from the appellant, who was Patwari at that time. Mr. Gupta argued that according to Kartar Singh (P W.), relations between the complainant and the appellant were strained and statement of Kartar Singh is corroborated by the admission made by the complainant that litigation between him and his sisterinlaw is pending. It is further argued that in the presence of the enmity. Sat Pal being complainant. he requires corroboration and the nonexamination ion of Dhan Singh and Sushil Kumar suggests that the version given by Sat Pal may not be true.

I have considered the arguments of Mr. Gupta and I feel that there is some force in them. In this case the prosecution is depending entirely on the statements of the complainant and two Investigating Officers. Dhan Singh who is a friend of Sat Pal. complainant and to whom Sat Pal had gone to Hissar before approaching the Vigilance Office, has not been examined. Sushil Kumar in whose shop the money was paid and recovery had been made, has also not been examined. To say that these witnesses were won over will not absolve the prosecution of its responsibility. Dhan Singh, who according, to the complainant. is his friend, has not been shown to be in any way interested in the appellant. His nonexamination is a discredit to the prosecution.

The prosecution has not led any independent evidence to establish that the appellant had demanded bribe from Sat Pal (P.W.). Again it is depending upon Sat Pal''s testimony. There is no other corroborating circumstance to support the testimony of Sat Pal, who being inimical, needs corroboration.

In the circumstances of the case it is not safe to convict the appellant on the testimony of the complainant and the Investigating Officers. The prosecution should have examined some evidence to corroborate the testimony of the complainant as even the prosecution story as narrated by Sat Pal (P.W.) is not very convicting. According to Sat Pal, he and the police party waited at the house of the appellant for one hour and then all of a sudden be remembered that the accused was to come from the Bus Stand side and the party started towards Bus Stand side. It is further in his testimony that he and the appellant then went to the Hair Dresser Shop and the money was passed. If the narration as given by Sat Pal (P.W.) is correct then there is no reason why the appellant will not notice and presence of the police officials accompanying Sat Pal and Dhan Singh and normally in this situation a public servant will not accept money in a hair dresser shop knowing. very well that the complaint is accompanied by the police party.

Taking all these circumstances into consideration i.e. the unnatural pass of the prosecution story there being no corroboration of the testimony of Sat Pal complainant and the Investigation Officers and the fact that the relations between the appellant and the complainant were strained, I do not find it safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant. The appeal of the appellant, is accepted and he is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if already realised, shall be refund to the appellant.