Mahipal vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Aman Kumar had made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Officer on account of incorrect meter reading. The said complaint was marked to Rajpal. While the complainant was going to hand over the application to Rajpal, he met the appellant. Appellant demanded Rs. 200/- from the complainant to do the needful. Thereafter the complainant met the vigilance authorities. Complainant handed over four currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 50/- each to PW-5 O.P. Singh who returned the same to the complainant after application of phenolphthalein powder. Complainant was directed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. Jasmer Singh was joined as a shadow witness and he was instructed to give a signal to the raiding party after the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant from the complainant on demand. Complainant and the shadow witness entered the office of the appellant whereas the remaining raiding party stayed behind. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand who kept the same in the right pocket of his pant. On receipt of signal from Head Constable Roshan Lal, PW-5 along with the members of the remaining raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. Currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the pant of the appellant. When the pant pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

Charge was framed against the appellant u/s 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''Act'' for short).

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 7 witnesses during trial.

Appellant when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed as under:-

Anta Ram, who is the father of Aman Kumar PW, is having Account No. 2945 relating to his disputed connection. I had checked this meter on 26.11.93 and the meter reading was 5942. I again conducted the meter reading of the same meter on 25.1.1994 and it was found to be 5890 which shows that instead of more meter reading, it was found to be less reading on a future date, which means that the complainant had reversed the meter reading. About this, I reported to my higher officer and made an endorsement by adding letter ''D'' which indicated meter defective. In the month of May, 1994, I was not the meter reader but was performing the duty of ALM and was looking after the work of maintenance. Due to the above reason, a false case was manipulated against me by Aman Kumar in connivance with the police. I am innocent.

Appellant examined DW-1 Lakhwinder Singh in his defence.

The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 4.5.1998 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 7 and 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. The factum of demand of bribe money by the appellant was not established in this case. Appellant could not be convicted and sentenced qua commission of offence punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) of the Act merely because recovery of the tainted currency notes were effected from the appellant. In fact, appellant had detected that meter reading of the meter of the complainant was not correct in January 1994. Due to this reason, complainant had falsely involved the appellant in this case. The shadow witness had not supported the prosecution case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Amrit Lal Vs. State of Punjab '', wherein it was held as under:-

Unless this Court is satisfied on the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused it is difficult to hold that he accepted the illegal gratification or obtained the same so as to expose himself for punishment for an offence u/s 7 of the Act.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant has duly proved the prosecution case. The statement of the complainant qua recovery of the tainted currency notes from the pant pocket of the appellant was duly corroborated by PW-5 O.P. Singh.

In the present case, complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-3, has deposed as per the prosecution story. Complainant has specifically deposed that Rs. 200/- had been demanded as bribe by the appellant from him to correct his electricity bills. Although, complainant had already deposited the bills but it appears that complainant wanted correction in the bills for future purposes. Complainant had promised the appellant that he would pay the demanded amount on the next day. Thereafter, complainant approached the vigilance authorities and a raid was organized. Complainant went to the office of the appellant and handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant who kept the same in his pant pocket. The said currency notes were recovered from the pant pocket of the appellant by PW-5 O.P. Singh. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. This leads to the inference that the tainted currency notes had been dealt with by the appellant. Although, in the present case, shadow witness has not supported the prosecution story but the testimony of PW-3 complainant inspires confidence. Complainant was cross-examined at length but his testimony with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe and its recovery from the appellant could not be shaken. Appellant has taken up the plea that he had checked the meter of the complainant on 26.11.1993 and the reading of the meter was 5942 and when he again checked the meter on 25.1.1994, the meter reading was 5890. In this regard appellant has examined DW-1 Lakhwinder Singh. However, the said plea of the appellant appears to be an afterthought as no theft case was registered against the complainant. Hence, the complainant had no occasion to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Further, in the present case, complainant has been caught red handed while accepting bribe. In these circumstances, the Trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 7 and 13(2) of the Act. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant as it is based on different facts.

No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.