Mohammad Hussain vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

Virender Singh, J.—Vide impugned judgment dated 7th of November, 2001 of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, Appellant,

Mohammad Hussain, (for short hereinafter to be referred to as accused), the then Accounts Assistant in Additional Treasury, Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu, stands convicted under Sections 161 RPC and 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act,

2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act'), and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.

5,000/-; in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for one year for the offence punishable u/s 161 RPC. Both the sentences are, however, ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of the same, he has

preferred the instant appeal.

The case of the prosecution can be summarized as under:

Complainant, Sartaj Singh approached the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, on 25-01-1995 and produced a written complaint EXPWSS, alleging

therein that his father (Iqbal Singh) had expired on 14-12-1992 and thereafter his mother had also expired. Pension of his father was settled by the

Accountant General's Office, Jammu in the year 1993 in his favour being legal heir and after the settlement, the accused, who was posted as

Accounts Assistant in Additional Treasury, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, had extracted Rs. 300/- as bribe for the arrears of the pension amounting to

Rs. 42,000/-, and every time when he went to the Treasury Office for getting the pension, the accused demanded Rs. 20/-for the release of the

pension (Rs. 4,222/- per month). It is then alleged that now his father's gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 78,538/- was to be released and for that

purpose the accused had put a demand of Rs. 1,500/- as bribe from him, on the pretext that otherwise the releasing of the said amount would take

about one or two months. It is then alleged in the said complaint that he (Sartaj Singh) had promised the accused to pay Rs. 1,000/-, at the first

instance, on 25-01-1995 afternoon (the day of occurrence), and assured him to make him the payment of the balance amount (Rs. 500/-) in the

first week of February, 1995.

On these allegations, the complainant, Sartaj Singh, requested the Vigilance Organization for the appropriate action against the accused.

Consequently, FIR No. 18/95 was registered.

In fact, the aforesaid complaint was addressed to SSP, Vigilance Organization, which in routine was referred to PW Dy. SP, Shakeel Ahmed

Beigh, who joined PW Karlar Singh Chib in the raiding party and services of two independent witnesses, namely, PW Hari Ram Sarotra, JE, and

PW Satyavrat Rawal, AEE, R&B Division, Jammu, were also obtained. The bribe amount produced by complainant, Sartaj Singh, was tainted

with phenolphthalein powder (PP) and handed over to him for payment to the accused on demand. After giving the demonstration with regard to

certain formalities, aforesaid Hari Ram Sarotra, was directed to act as a Shadow Witness for the purpose of giving a signal to the trap party after

the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. Further, the case of the prosecution is that after reaching the spot, when the complainant paid

the bribe amount to the accused, aforesaid Hari Ram Sarotra flashed the signal, whereupon the raiding party reached the spot, caught the accused

red handed and recovered from him the notes which were handed over to the complainant. They were tallied with the numbers already noted

down on a separate slip prepared before conducting the raid. The hand wash and pocket wash of the accused had turned into pink at the spot.

The bribe money was seized vide recovery memo. The accused was also taken into custody and the Credit Advice of Rs. 78,538/- in favour the

complainant was taken from his custody through a separate seizure memo. Certain other formalities were also got completed. After completion of

the investigation and obtaining the required sanction u/s 6 of the Act, the challan was presented against the accused, who accordingly was charged

u/s 5 (2) of the Act read with Section 161 RPC by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu.

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, has examined the following witnesses:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) PW-1, Sartaj Singh Complainant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) PW-2, AEE Satyavrat Rawal Independent witness/Recovery

Witness/Member Raiding Party.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) PW-3, JE Hari Ram Sarotra Independent Witness/Shadow

Witness/Member Raiding Party

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) PW-4, Dy. SP Shakeel Ahmad Incharge, Raiding Party

Beigh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) PW-5, Inspector Mahadeep Member, Raiding Party Singh

Jamwal,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) PW-6, Inspector Krishan Chand -do-

Pathania

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) PW-7, Inspector Joginder Singh -do-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(8) PW-8, SGC Nazir Hussain -do-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9) PW-9, SGC Yash Pal Dusting of notes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(10) PW-10, Santosh Sharma (Dy. For proving the posting order of

Director, Accounts and Treasuries) the accused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(11) PW-11, Inspector Kartar Singh Investigating Officer/Member

Raiding Party

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) PW-12,SSP Ram Lubaya Registration of FIR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(13) PW-13, SP Kewal Krishan Gupta, Preparation of challan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The accused denied all the allegations when incriminating evidence was put to him u/s 342 Cr.PC, and took the plea that Complainant, Sartaj

Singh, was a bad character and the Vigilance Organization people had foisted the case against him in connivance with the Complainant, who was

son of a police official. He further pleaded that on the day of occurrence, he was sitting with certain protestors in front of the office and, in the

meanwhile, five/six police officials came there, caught hold of him, brought him into the room and, meanwhile, stealthily some money was put into

his pocket.

In defence, the accused had examined the following witnesses:

(1) DW-1, Babu Ram, Accountant, (the then Treasury Superintendent).

(2) DW-2, Bhan Singh, Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank.

I do not feel the necessity of reproducing the entire evidence in my judgment, as the same, in detail, has already been depicted in the impugned

judgment itself. However, at the appropriate stage, I shall be referring to the evidence of certain material witnesses.)

Heard Mr. Sakal Bhushan, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-

State. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire record minutely.

Mr. Bhushan contends vehemently that whole of the prosecution case is shrouded in doubt and it appears that the accused has been falsely

implicated in this case for certain ulterior motives. Dwelling upon his arguments, he submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove all the

three basis ingredients, viz., demand of bribe by the accused; acceptance of bribe money by the accused; and then the recovery of bribe money

from the accused. In the absence of these three basic aspects being proved, it would not be safe to hold conviction.

In order to demolish the prosecution case on first aspect, Mr. Bhushan contends that the very case set up by the prosecution against the

accused is that he being an Accounts Assistant in Treasury Office, was demanding Rs. 1,500/-as bribe from Complainant, Sartaj Singh, for

releasing the gratuity (Rs. 78,538/-) of his late father, Iqbal Singh, for which the Complainant had agreed to pay the first instalment of Rs. 1,000/-

to him on 25-01-1995. While drawing my attention to the statement of the complaint, learned Counsel submits that the complainant had admitted

in his cross-examination that papers of gratuity were received in Additional Treasury, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, from A.G's Office only on 20-01-

1995. So, from this factual position, one fact is very clear that till then the accused had nothing to do with the said gratuity matter and the

procedure for release of gratuity is that after the receipt of the case from A.G's Office in the concerned Treasury, the Treasury Bill is passed in the

concerned Treasury and the stamp of ""passed"" is put on the said Bill and thereafter on that basis, the Bank issues the Credit Advice. This

procedure was brought on record of the Court by Babu Ram, Accountant (DW-1), who was posted as Superintendent of Treasury at the relevant

time. His evidence on this particular aspect was not challenged by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, there can not be any doubt at least about the

procedure upto the stage of the issuance of the Credit Advice.

In an attempt to take the accused away from his liability, the learned Counsel has drawn my the attention to the evidence of another official

witness, namely Bhan Singh (DW-2), who, at the relevant time, was posted as Bank Manager in the Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Extension

Counter, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, and attached with the Additional Treasury, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, to contend that this witness had stated that he

had prepared the Credit Advice dated 21-01-1995 on the basis of the Bill, which he had received from the Treasury. The Credit Advice, which

was already marked as Mark-1, was identified by this witness and was then got exhibited as EXPW-BS. According to the learned Counsel, the

bare perusal of the Credit Advice dated 21-01-1995 reveals that a sum of Rs. 78,538/- was to be deposited in Account No. 11604/100 of the

Complainant, Sartaj Singh, which is apparently a Bank Account and it was prepared by the Bank official. Therefore, even remotely the accused

cannot be linked with it. From this evidence on record, one fact is clear that the accused had already performed his duty between 20-01-1995 to

21-01-1995 and, therefore, possibly there was no reason for him to put a demand of Rs. 1,500/- and he was of no help to him (Complainant) at

all. This basic flaw touches the core of the case and is enough to dislodge the prosecution case in its entirely.

Mr. Bhushan then contends that the aforesaid flaw can be seen from another angle as well. DW Bhan Singh has categorically stated that the

Credit Advice was taken by Sartaj Singh, the complainant on 21-01-1995 itself. He further stated that neither any employee of the Treasury had

any connection with the said document nor it could be in his custody. This piece of evidence of PW Bhan Singh, according to Mr. Bhushan, has

gone unchallenged and hence deemed to be admitted under law. This fact rather creates lot of doubt about the alleged recovery of the Credit

Advice from the accused. The learned Counsel contends that the seizure of the Credit Advice assumes importance in this case. There are two

marginal witnesses to the seizure memo and one of them is complainant himself and other is PW Hari Ram Sarotra. The Complainant states in his

cross-examination that the Credit Advice EXPW-BS was handed over to him by the accused after receiving the alleged bribe of Rs. 1,000/-. This

evidence is absolutely contrary to the statement of official witness Bhan Singh, the Bank Manager. The learned Counsel then contends that even if

it is taken to be true, then also it runs contrary to the contents of the seizure memo EXPWSS/3, which reflects that the Credit Advice was

produced by the accused himself on demand of the Investigating Officer. This all is doubtful and, in turn, it creates doubt about the factum of

making a demand for illegal gratification from the side of the accused. Here the prosecution fails on this vital aspect, the learned Counsel so

contends.

Mr. Bhushan then submits that the other witness to the demand was Hari Ram Sarotra (PW-3), who was a Shadow Witness and the direction

to him was to give a particular signal to the Raiding Party after the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. This witness has not supported

the allegation of demand and the prosecution has not challenged him on this vital aspect. Therefore, from his evidence also, the case of the

prosecution becomes doubtful in so far as the alleged demand of the bribe money by the accused from the complainant is concerned.

In support of his aforesaid contentions, Mr. Bhushan relies upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in State through Inspector of Police,

A.P. Vs. K. Narasimhachary, and S. Suryanarayana Rao Vs. State, .

While launching the attack on the prosecution vis-a-vis the second main ingredient, i.e., acceptance of bribe money by the accused, Mr.

Bhushan contends that acceptance bereft of demand is no acceptance. Even otherwise, Hari Ram Sarotra has deposed in his examination-in-chief

that when he, being a Shadow Witness, and the complainant went inside the Treasury, two other members of the team remained near the Temple.

He was two to four steps behind the complainant and the accused was inside the room, where a girl was also sitting there. He further stated that

the complainant said something to the accused and took him to the other room. He then stated that he could not hear as to what was said and then

the complainant went out of the room and the accused again came on his chair and thereafter the complainant came in the room along with other

members of the team. This witness was very categoric in saying that he did not see the complainant paying any money to the accused. According

to Mr. Bhushan, this witness was the Shadow Witness whose main job was to witness the acceptance of the alleged bribe by the accused on

demand from the complainant and thereafter, a signal was to be flashed to the rest of the team members for further action, as already agreed. This

witness rather demolishes the case of the prosecution with regard to the demand and acceptance of the bribe money. The prosecution did not

choose to declare him hostile. He is an official witness being JE and his evidence cannot be just brushed aside.

Mr. Bhushan then touching the third main aspect submits that once the case of the prosecution is failing with regard to the other basic two

aspects, viz., the demand and acceptance of the bribe money, mere alleged recovery of bribe money from the accused, is not sufficient for holding

the conviction. But in the case in hand, even the alleged recovery is not proved to the hilt, primarily for the reason that not only the circumstances

immediately preceding the recovery are doubtful in this case, thereby making the recovery more doubtful, but certain very material discrepancies in

the statement of the prosecution witnesses create lot of doubt about the recovery of money from the accused. Highlighting those discrepancies, Mr.

Bhushan has taken me through the statement of certain official witnesses upon which I will comment upon subsequently at a later stage.

In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel has relied upon Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration),

On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Bhushan submits that the prosecution case is highly doubtful with regard to all the three main

ingredients and as such has miserably failed to discharge its burden of proving its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt against the

accused. Therefore, he deserves acquittal.

Repudiating the submissions advanced by Mr. Bhushan, Mr. Salathia submits that the prosecution case is primarily resting upon the evidence of

official witnesses, who certainly having no axe to grind against the accused and, therefore, even if certain discrepancies have occurred in their

statements, they are to be ignored, as the basic substratum of the prosecution case is proved. He then submits that the accused was caught red

handed while taking bribe money, which was ultimately recovered from his pocket and, therefore, a presumption has to be drawn against him that

he had accepted the same as illegal gratification. He, thus, has no escape.

After hearing rival contentions of the either side and going through the entire evidence as also certain other material documents on record, I am

of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused to the hilt and, as such, he deserves

acquittal.

I shall be now entering into a detailed discussion while considering all the material aspects of the case within the parameters of law on the

subject.

It is held in Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat, , that in the absence of the evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe money

by the accused, it is not safe to convict him under Prevention of Corruption Act. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while

considering the other judgments rendered by it, ultimately acquitted the accused/appellant.

In another recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (1) RCR 784, their

Lordships have also held that even if the trap witnesses turn hostile, the Court can convict the accused on the basis of the evidence of the

complainant and official witnesses. In the said judgment, their Lordships have dealt with presumption to be drawn against the public servant, who

accepts the gratification other than legal remuneration. Their Lordships, while discussing the expression ""may presume"" and ""shall presume"" in

context of Section 4(1) of the Evidence Act, observed thus:

Before proceeding further, we may point out that the expressions, ""may presume"" and ""shall presume"" are defined in Section 4 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as ""factual

presumptions"" or ""discretionary presumptions"" and those falling under the latter as ""legal presumptions"" or ""compulsory presumptions. When the

expression ""shall be presumed"" is employed in Section 4(1) of the Act, it must have the same import of compulsion.

It was further observed that the said presumption is, however, legal presumption and has to be by proof and not by explanation, which may

seem to be plausible. In the aforesaid judgment, the other judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject rendered in State of Andhra Pradesh v.

V. Vasudev Rao 2003 (4) RCR 917 and A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala 2004 (1) RCR 318 were also referred to and after taking into

consideration the factual position, the conviction of the accused as already recorded was upheld. While following the ratio of the aforesaid

judgments, I am examining the present case from all angles.

It goes without saying that it is a cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the very case set up by it. If one

appreciates the case in hand in its right perspective, it can be said that the whole case revolves round the Credit Advice EXPWBS, which is shown

to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. It was not got proved by the prosecution for obvious reasons, as it was damaging its

case and, therefore, the accused took the burden of getting it proved from the statement of Bhan Singh (Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank).

This Credit Advice, according to Bhan Singh, was handed over to the Complainant himself after the case of release of the gratuity was cleared by

the Treasury Office. He is an official witness and, may be he is produced in defence, it cannot be said that he has favoured the accused in any

manner. He, in fact, stated on oath the procedure of the Bank in releasing the gratuity of any person. It was nothing new in this case. His statement

that Credit Advice was handed over to the Complainant, otherwise went unchallenged and, therefore, can safely be believed. So is the position of

the other official witness produced by the defence, namely, Babu Ram, Accountant, who besides referring to the occurrence, stated that Credit

Advice is the document of the Bank and after the case was cleared by the Treasury, the accused had no connection with the same, as it is

prepared by the Bank and given to the concerned person by the Bank itself. There was no challenge to this statement also from the side of

prosecution. Babu Ram is also an official witness, who depicted the procedure of the Treasury having least concern with the case.

Admitted position before me is that the investigation in this case was ""not carried out at least with regard to the aforesaid procedure and, in my

considered view, this was a very important feature, which could turn the table. The Investigating Officer might have thought in his wisdom that it is a

case of trap laid by the Vigilance Organization and after the accused was apprehended at the spot, the investigation ended after completing certain

procedural formalities. But in my view, it is to be termed as laxity on the part of the Investigating Officer. After all, a corruption case is a very

sensitive one and no loose ends should be left in such type of cases by the Investigating Officer.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual backdrop before me, the basic application (complaint) EXPWSS assumes importance. In the said

application, the Complainant does not talk a word about the Credit Advice at all. This dents the prosecution case and an adverse inference has to

be drawn to say that this material fact was concealed by the Complainant for certain ulterior reasons best known to him. For reference, I would

like to reproduce the relevant portion of the complaint in verbatim:

To

The Sr. Supdt. of Police,

Vigilance Organization,

Jammu.

Sir,

Most respectfully, I beg to state that my father Late Sh. Iqbal Singh Dy. S.P. expired on 14th Dec 92. My mother has also expired since 4 years

back. Being, the legal heir, my father's pension was settled by A.G. Office Jammu in the year 1993.

After the settlement of my father's pension, one Mohd Hussain Acctt. Astt. Addl. Try. Gandhi Nagar, Jammu extorted Rs. 300 from me as a bribe

for the Arrear of my father Rs. 42,000.

Whenever, I go to Try. Office for getting pension, the dealing Acctt. Astt. Mr. Mohd Hussain demands Rs. 20 for my father's pension Rs. 4222/-

per month.

Now, my father's gratuity Rs. 78,538 is going to be release. Again, Mr. Mohd. Hussain is demanding Rs. 1500 as a bribe from me for releasing

the same, otherwise, the payment will be made after one or two month late. I have promised to pay Mr. Mohd. Hussain Rs. 1000 as first

installment today i.e. on 25th Jan 95 afternoon and the remaining Rs. 500 on the first week of February 1995.

The currency notes....

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

It is therefore, requested to you that action may be taken against the accused under law.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

(Sartaj Singh

S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh

R/o Last Morh Gandhi Ngr,

Jammu

Matter is not over here. Reference to the seizure memo EXPWSS/3, to which the Complainant himself is the attesting witness along with PW

Hari Ram Sarotra, JE, the Shadow Witness, is also not of less importance. In the recovery memo, it is stated that the Credit Advice amounting to

Rs. 78,538/- dated 21-01-1995, on demand, was produced by the accused and taken into possession. This creates a lot of doubt in my mind with

regard to the fact as to whether any demand was actually made by the accused and the story set up by the prosecution is true or not, for the

reason that if the Complainant, in fact, had handed over Rs. 1,000/- on demand to the accused in the Office, as alleged, the Credit Advice could

not be with the accused and, in all probabilities, should have been with the complainant, who has also stated that after the money was paid to the

accused, he had handed over the Credit Advice to him. This is certainly contrary to the seizure memo. This not only creates a lot of doubt in my

mind with regard to the investigation conducted in this case, it also ieads me to conclude that the prosecution case is stumbling badly on the basic

ingredient of alleged demand by accused and possibly there could be no reason for him to make such demand, as the job was already done from

his end.

I do not feel the necessity of touching the evidence of Hari Ram Sarotra, JE, on the aforesaid aspect in detail, as I feel that the aforesaid

discussion is enough to dislodge the prosecution, but this witness did not toe the line of the prosecution on any vital aspect and in spite of that, he

was not declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, his evidence has also to be taken into consideration by this Court against the

prosecution.

The submissions of Mr. Bhushan on the aforesaid aspect get accord from the case State v. K. Narasimhachary (Supra) cited by him.

Adverting to the other aspect of the case, i.e., acceptance of the bribe money by the accused, I find weight in the submissions of Mr. Bhushan

that acceptance bereft of demand is no acceptance. Even otherwise, I have re-scanned the case of the prosecution in this regard. The only

evidence before me in this regard is in the shape of statement of the Complainant and Hari Ram Sarotra, the Shadow Witness and once I have

doubted the Complainant vis-a-vis the very foundation of the case for the aforesaid reasons, in my considered view, he is not a witness to be

believed in this regard. In that situation, the prosecution is left with the statement of JE Hari Ram Sarotra only who, as stated above, did not toe the

line of prosecution and gave new story. Anyhow, he did not talk about the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused in his presence.

Therefore, in my firm view, the prosecution case fails even on this aspect also.

In M. K. Harshan v. State of Kerala (1) CCR 218, their Lordships have held that in the case of bribe, two aspects are very important; firstly,

there must be a demand and, secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused had obtained the illegal gratification and mere

demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Here, in the case in hand, the prosecution is failing miserably on both the important

aspects for want of clinching and convincing evidence.

We are now left with the recovery part only, which, no doubt, is again a very vital aspect and can tilt the fate of the case either way. Following

the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra), presumption can also be

drawn against the accused. Therefore, I have very carefully re-examined the entire evidence of the prosecution in this regard, which is primarily in

the shape of official witnesses. In my view, there are certain very material flaws, which are staring at the prosecution. Not only the circumstances

immediately preceding the recovery are doubtful, which by themselves make the recovery doubtful, but if the present aspect is appreciated

individually on the touchstone of judicial scrutiny, the recovery as projected in this case is highly doubtful.

PW Inspector Krishan Chand Pathania stated in his evidence that on the day of raid, the employees were on strike and the accused was sitting

outside and was not in his room. He was brought by the Complainant in his room and the Shadow Witness was also accompanying him. He rather

stated that some members of the team had also brought the accused inside and taken him to his seat, where his search was conducted. PW Kartar

Singh Chib, another official witness and that too the Investigating Officer, stated in his cross-examination that on the date of occurrence, the

employees were on strike and were playing cards outside, and the employees, who had brought the accused from the outside, had not, in fact,

clutched him, but surrounded him only. He rather went to the extent of saying that he had entered the lawns when the Vigilance team had

surrounded the accused and the Dy. SP Beigh was also ahead of him. PW Satyavrat Rawal also stated in his cross-examination that the

Complainant and the Shadow Witness went inside the Treasury and the other members of the team remained outside before getting the signal from

the Shadow Witness. Dy. SP told that the accused was not there in the Office and then they waited for some time and then the accused was found.

He stated that other members of the raiding party went inside the Office of the accused and many members of the Vigilance Organization brought

the accused in the room from outside and then Vigilance team asked him to search the accused, which he did.

Another material fact, which creates doubt about the recovery, is that PW Satyrvrat Rawal stated in his cross-examination that the accused

was raising noise that he was trapped without any reason. JE Hari Ram Sarotra also stated in his cross-examination that when he came inside, he

saw the members of the raiding team standing around the accused, and the accused told them that he had neither demanded nor accepted the bribe

money. Inspector Krishan Chand Pathania also stated in his cross-examination that the accused was saying that he had not taken any bribe and the

money was put in his pocket by force and he is being framed wrongly. The matter does not rest here. Even PW Kartar Singh Chib, Investigating

Officer, also admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was saying that he was innocent and caught forcibly.

Evidence of Babu Ram, Accountant, a witness produced in defence, is also nearer to what is stated by the aforesaid official witnesses

produced by the prosecution. He stated that on 25-01-1995, a strike was going on in the Treasury Office and the accused was sitting with them in

the lawns. They were raising slogans with regard to Fifth Pay Commission. In the meanwhile, five/six officials came and they caught hold of the

accused from both the sides and took him to room. He then stated that he did not know what had happened thereafter and they had taken the

accused along in a Jeep.

I have noticed certain discrepancies with regard to the hand wash of the accused vis-'-vis seizure memo, but I do not feel the necessity of

discussing that aspect in detail, as I find the aforesaid material sufficient for doubting the alleged recovery of bribe money from the accused. I,

accordingly, dislodge the prosecution on this vital aspect also.

According to me, no other important aspect is left untouched by me in the judgment.

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the net result is that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving its case against the

accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, his conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment

deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.

I am conscious of the fact that corruption in a civilized society is a disease like Cancer, which, if not detected in time, is sure to lead to the

disastrous consequences. Corruption is termed as a plague. It is also termed as a royal thievery and the socio-political system exposed to such a

communicable disease is likely to crumble in its own weight. The evil of corruption has persistently crept into various levels despite the stringent

history of the Act since 1947 and this hydra-headed dragon of corruption has to be lynched at the earliest or it is likely to cause turbulence shaking

the socio-economic fabric. But at the same time, equally important is that an individual, who is booked in Corruption Act case, should not be

punished without testing his case on the touchstone of judicial scrutiny as, it is not only the accused, who goes to jail with the stigma of being a

corrupt official, it has its far reaching effect on the entire family. The person does not only lose his livelihood but earns ignominy also. Therefore, the

Court is expected to be very careful and circumspect keeping in view that a corrupt does not go escort free and the innocent is not taken to task at

the whims of some one. These cases are to be judged on a very sensitive platform of judicial scrutiny. The said exercise has been done by me in

the case in hand and thereafter only I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution case is not proved to the hilt against the accused.

The net result is that the instant appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail and shall be discharged of his

bail bonds forthwith.