Kikkar Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, Special Judge, Ferozepur acquitted the private Respondent-accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by virtue of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.9.2009.

State of Punjab did not challenge the judgment of acquittal. However, Petitioner Kikkar Singh son of Dalip Singh filed the instant petition for leave to appeal through Sh. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate on 5.7.2010, to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal.

Though the petition came up for hearing on 14.10.2010, but none appeared on behalf of Petitioner and in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 16.11.2011. On that day, position remained the same. As no body appeared on behalf of Petitioner, therefore, the case was again adjourned for today. Today again as neither the Petitioner nor his counsel nor any body else, is appearing on his behalf, therefore, I have no option but to go through the file myself and to decide the matter.

As is evident from the record that Special Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused, vide impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.9.2009, the operative part of which is as under:

In the instant case, the defence taken by the accused seems to be more probable. He has specifically pleaded that he had made a complaint against Kikker Singh complainant to the department that he is not supplying the ration to the ration card holders and on the basis of his complaint as well as statements of persons who were having ration cards, depot license of the complainant was suspended and a penalty to the tune of Rs. 800/-was imposed upon Kikker Singh, which eh deposited in the bank. These facts have been admitted by Kikker Singh complainant when subjected to cross examination. He has admitted that on 30.6.2005 accused Ramesh Chander conducted an enquiry against him and recorded statements of nine persons and made the report to DFSC to the effect that he is not distributing the ration to the ration card holders. He has also admitted that his license was suspended by the DFSC on 8.7.2005 and his depot remained closed only for one month. He further admitted that DFSC imposed penalty of Rs. 800/-on him and that he deposited the said penalty in treasury. It has also categorically been admitted by him that the accused had seen and signed the entry of stock register against 1660 litres of kerosene oil. Here, it would also be pertinent to mention that after the distribution of the sale of afore said 1660 litres of kerosene oil, accused was to only get a sum of Rs. 100/120/-or so as he used to get only seven paise as commission per litre of kerosene oil. No prudent man would be expected to part with a sum of Rs. 1000/-, when he himself is getting such a meagre amount as commission. So, it seems that only on account of the grudge in his mind for the enquiry having been conducted by the accused, complainant Kikker Singh managed to get him trapped in the instant case.

Moreover, it is also a settled principle of law that mere recovery of tainted currency notes and positive result of the phenolphthalein test is not enough to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence, particularly when the hands of the accused were got washed in the solution only after getting the recovery effected, as has been observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Meena (Smt.) wife of Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (2)RCR 661 as well as by the Hon''ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in RV Subha Rao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kakinada Rangel 2005(4) RCR 716.

Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has recorded the valid grounds/reasons in acquitting the Respondent-accused. Such well articulated impugned judgment containing valid reasons of acquittal cannot legally be interfered with in these proceedings, unless the same is perverse or without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been set out in the grounds of appeal by the Petitioner.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore,the instant petition is hereby dismissed, culminating into the dismissal of appeal aswell.