Mahabir Singh vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by Mahabir Singh against the judgment of the special Judge, Bhiwani, dated November 8, 1983, by which he was convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. For the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act he was sentenced to undergo one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, sentence of one year''s rigorous imprisonment was imposed upon him. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The appellant is working as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways and is, therefore, a public servant. According to the prosecution he was on duty as a Conductor in Bus No. HRO 2714 of the Haryana Roadways on September 9, 1982 which was going from Rohtak to Dadri. The bus was intercepted at about 5.45 p.m at the Dadri bypass by a checking party consisting of the Inspector of Haryana Roadways Bal Krishan (PW 3) and Iqbal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW4) and some other police officials. Two passengers, namely, Siri Ram (PW1) and Bhagwana (PW2) alighted from the bus and they unloaded some luggage. They were unable to produce their tickets and on enquiry informed that they paid Rs. 25/ to the appellant but he had failed to issue them any tickets. One Ram Dhari, Inspector of Haryana Roadways, was member of the checking party and he drafted the First Information Report (Exhibit PD) which he handed over to Iqbal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the basis of this report a formal First Information Report (Exhibit PG) was recorded on October 19,1982.

Siri Ram (PW 1) and Bhagwana (PW2) failed to support the prosecution story in the witnessbox. Bal Krishan Inspector of Haryana Roadways (PW 3) and Iqbal Singh D.S.P. (PW 4) lent support to the prosecution case. The appellant when examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded innocence and alleged false implication.

The learned Special Judge, Bhiwani, placing reliance on the statement of Bal Krishan (PW3) and Iqbal Singh D.S.P. (PW4) convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

I have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel. The prosecution case can succeed against the appellant only if it is proved that he received Rs. 25/ from Siri Ram (PW) and Bhagwana (PW2) without issuing them tickets. This allegation is refuted by these two witnesses. Bal Krishan, Inspector Haryana Roadways (PW3) stated that PW 1 and PW 2 were unable to show him tickets and they told him that they had paid Rs. 25/ to the appellant who did not issue them tickets. The money was not paid by PW 1 and PW 2 to the appellant in presence of this witness. His Information was, therefore, based on what had been told to him by PW 1 and PW2. Since these two witnesses have denied having imparted such an information to Bal Krishan (PW 3), the latter''s testimony cannot be deemed sufficient to come to the conclusion that the appellant did receive Rs. 25/ from Siri Ram and Bhagwana PWs. Bal Krishan (PW 3) stated in his crossexamination that he could find out from the waybill as to how many tickets had been issued to the Conductor for sale. In other words he could ascertain if PW 1 and PW 2 were travelling without tickets by checking the entries in the waybill and the cash in possession of the appellant. However, this witness admitted that he did not check the cash in the appellant''s possession. Hence the testimony of Bal Karishan (PW 3) is of little help to the prosecution.

Iqbal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (PW 4), merely stated that Bal Krishan (PW 3) had asked from PW 1 and PW 2 to show their tickets but they were unable to do so. He did not even state that PW 1 and PW 2 had said that they had paid Rs. 25/ to the appellant without his issuing the tickets.The statement of witnesses is, therefore, utterly unhelpful to the prosecution case.

No other evidence was led by the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant. It is manifest that the testimony of Bal Krishan (PW 3) and Iqbal Singh DSP (PW 4) does not prove the commission of any offence by the appellant.

For these reasons the impugned judgment of the Special Judge cannot be sustained. As a result thereof this appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and the latter is hereby acquitted.