Prabhu Dayal vs State of Haryana

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted by the trial Court on charge under section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. punishable under section 5(2) of the said Act as well as section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of the Rs. 200/ or in default of payment thereof to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment under the first count and to one year''s rigorous imprisonment under the second count. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up in appeal.

The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal is that Prabhu Dayal appellant was posted as Revenue Patwari in Dang Kalan Patwar Circle. Dharam Pal complainant along with his brother Suraj Mal had purchased some land in village Dang Kalan from Daulat Ram vide sale deed Exhibits P.E. and PF dated 17th and 21st April, 1986, respectively. On 551986 the complainant approached the accusedappellant and asked him to enter mutation regarding the change of ownership of land purchased by him and his brother. The accused demanded Rs. 200/ from the complainant as bribe. The sale deeds were handed over to the accused. On the morning of 1251986, the complainant contacted the accused and demanded the return of sale deeds but the accused refused to do so saying that the same shall be returned only after payment of Rs. 200/. The complainant then approached Shri Gian Singh Inspector Vigilance Bhiwani and made statement Exhibit PA in the presence of Bhag Mal and Shri S.P. Goel. On the basis of the statement, a case under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 161, Indian Penal Code was got registered against the accused at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, vide FIR Exht. P.A./1 at 7.05 a.m. The Inspector then applied the powder of Phenolpbthalein on two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each produced by Dharam Pal before him. The complainant was directed to approach the accused and hand over the money by way of bribe. Bhag Mal was directed to act as shadow witness and give signal to the Police party on the handing over of the money. The party then left Bhiwani at 4.30 p.m. and reached vill. Dang Kalan at 5.30 p.m. Dharam Pal and Bhag Mal approached the Patwarkhana. The accused was hot then present there, but arrived there after some time on having been called through a boy. The complainant then demanded the return of sale deeds on which the accused demanded the payment of Rs. 200/. Accordingly, Dharam Pal handed over Rs. 200/ to the accused whereupon Bhag Mal gave a signal to the other members of the party. The accused then threw the currency notes on the ground on seeing the police party. The Inspector picked by the currency notes and washed the hands of the accused in a solution of sodium carbonate which turned pinkish. The solution was poured in a nip and sealed. The currency notes Exhibits P2 and P3 were also put in, an envelope and sealed. The seizure memo was prepared of all these articles. After completion of other formalities and investigation and obtaining sanction Exhibit P.C. from the District Magistrate, Bhiwani, the accused was sent up for trial on such like allegations by submitting chargesheet before the Special Judge, Bhiwani.

The trial Court believing the version of Dharam Pal, Bhag Mal and Inspector Gian Singh coupled with the corroborative evidence of the recovery of currency notes and sale deeds, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as referred above.

The version of the accused appellant was that of innocence and false implication due to party faction in the village. Dharam Pal belonged to the group of Tulsi Ram Sarpanch who suspected that the accused was siding with Ram Kumar, leader of the other group. He also maintained having been summoned from the house of Ram Kumar on the day of this occurrence and that the currency notes fell down when the complainant tried to foist the same upon him. This version of the accused, however, did not find favour with the trial Court.

There is considerable force in the contention of Mr. R.S. Cheema, the learned counsel for the appellant that the version of Dharam Pal having paid Rs. 200/ to the accusedappellant on the latter''s demand is not corroborated by Bhag Mal and Inspector Gian Singh, because Bhag Mal in the examinationinchief simply stated Dharam Pal having given the currency notes to the accused and that in the first instance the accused refused to have the same but later on accepted it. In the next breath he stated that the accused threw the currency notes on the ground and that on query by the police, the accused stated that he had not taken the bribe. This witness is absolutely silent about the talk which took place between Dharam Pal and the accused at the time of handing over the alleged currency notes. On the other hand, Dharam Pal PW8 stated that the accused demanded Rs. 200/ from him for the return of the sale deeds and he handed over the amount to him as per demand. If actually the accused demanded the money from Dharam Pal, then there was no question of his refusing to accept the same in the first instance as deposed by Bhag Mal P.W. The matter does not rest here as during crossexamination Bhag Mal (PW9) stated that the .Police party arrived at the spot after the money fell on the ground. Similarly, according to Gian Singh, D.S.P. (PW12) he simply saw Dharam Pal complainant and the accused standing in the verandah of the Patwarkhana and Rs. 200/ in currency notes lying on the ground. Thus, under these circumstances the version of the accused that Dharam Pal had tried to foist the money upon him and it fell during that process appears to be wellfounded specially when according to Bhag Mal and Gian Singh (PW12) the accused had denied having taken the bribe just after the transaction of offering the bribe. If that is so, then the presence of phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the accused stands fully explained as the same was likely to fall while pushing the notes away. Consequently, it can be wellsaid that the version of Dharam Pal PW is not corroborated by any other evidence.

Simply, because the two sale deeds were recovered from the possession Revenue Patwari it cannot be said that he had made a demand of Rs. 200/ or had accepted the bribe as usually some time is taken by the Patwari to enter mutations on the basis of sale deeds and he would return the sale deeds after the requisite entry is made containing the relevant facts which are to be extracted from the sale deed. Thus, the sole version "a Dharam Pal PW that the accused had demanded payment of bribe on 551986 is also not acceptable because no other witness had been examined in this regard although Dharam Pal alleges having apprised many respectables of his village of this demand.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, of conviction and sentence of the trial Court being not sustainable is hereby set aside by .accepting this appeal.