Sat Pal Negi vs State of Haryana

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 22, 1986, passed by the Special Judge, Kurukshetra, convicting the appellant Sat Pal Negi under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ''the Act'') and sentencing him to suffer one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer six months'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under :

The appellant Sat Pal Negi was posted as Junior Engineer in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Cheeka, district Jind, Haryana. Satish Kumar Katyal was posted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Cheeka, and was the coaccused in this case, but he has been acquitted of the charges by the learned Special Judge, Kurukshetra. The complainant Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W.1) was a contractor and he was entrusted with the contract for construction of the Mahila Mandal Bhavan at village Majri at an estimated cost of Rs. 30,000/. The contract was allotted to him by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Cheeka. The appellant, it is alleged, was working under the direct control of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Satish Kumar Katyal. The complainant Jatinder Pal Singh submitted a bill for a sum of Rs. 13157/ in respect of part construction work undertaken by him and a cheque bearing No. 039567 dated June 28, 1984 was issued to the complainant which was got encashed from the State Bank of India, Cheeka, on July 5, 1984. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,000/ as illegal gratification had been demanded by the two accused from the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh for issuance of the cheque aforesaid, but that was not pursued at that time and the cheque for the said amount had been issued on the promise that the said illegal gratification will be paid by the contractor before preparing the next bill in respect of construction of the building of Mahila Mandal Bhavan. It is alleged that the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh approached the police for laying a trap of the appellant and coaccused Satish Kumar Katyal. The complainant Jatinder Pal Singh met Mr. Surat Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and stated before him that the aforesaid illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ had been demanded from him for the future payment of the said construction work and this demand was made by accused Satish Kumar Katyal, Block Development and Panchayat Officer. In the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Surat Singh Inspector Sultan Singh was handed over 20 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each, the total value being Rs. 1,000/ by the complainant. The currency notes are Exhibits P. 1 to P. 20. These currency notes were initialled by Inspector Sultan Singh, who treated the currency notes with phenophthalein powder and after observing the usual precautions of preparation of search memo and seizure memo handed over the currency notes (Exhibits P. 1 to P. 20) back to the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1) to be offered and paid to the accused as per trap plan. Thereafter, the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh accompanied by the shadow witnesses Mangat Singh and Kashmir Singh and the police party including Inspector Sultan Singh left in a government vehicle (Jeep) and reached Cheeka Chowk. The complainant and the two witnesses Mangat Singh and Kashmir Singh were dropped there and the police party proceeded further in the government vehicle. This police party returned after 10/15 minutes accompanied by Mr. R.A. Bansal, Sub Divisional Officer, Haryana State Electricity Board. The jeep was parked near the chowk. The complainant accompanied by Mangat Singh proceeded towards the residential colony followed by the other witnesses. The raid party stayed back at the gate of the colony. The complainant and Mangat Singh reached the house of the appellant Sat Pal Negi, who was found present there sitting in the entrance room on a sofa. The appellant Sat Pal Negi was wearing a Pyjama and a Banian. The complainant Jatinder Pal Singh was asked to sit across the table and the appellant enquired from him as to whether he had brought the money as per his promise. When the complainant replied in the affirmative, the currency notes (Exhibits P. 1 to P. 20) were handed over by the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1) to the appellant Sat Pal Negi, who counted them and after folding the same placed them in the lower portion of the table and placed a toy car (Exhibit P.21) as a paper weight on the currency notes. The shadow witness Mangat Singh continued to stand at the door of the house and is said to have witnessed the transaction from outside. After the currency notes had been delivered, Mangat Singh entered the room and sat by the side of complainant Jatinder Pal Singh on a separate chair. Within a few moments, the members of the raiding party arrived there in plain clothes. The raiding party was informed by the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh that he had handed over the currency notes to the appellant Sat Pal Negi, who had placed the same in the lower portion of the table under the weight of the toy car. Thereupon, the currency notes were recovered and the hands of the appellant Sat Pal Negi were got washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of which turned pink with the reaction of phenophthalein powder. The solution was collected as a sample in bottle (Exhibit P.22) which was sealed. The currency notes were tallied with the seizure memo and the notes were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the solution turned pink and the same was also collected in a separate bottle (Exhibit P. 23) which was sealed. The currency notes were dried and sealed in a separate packet and taken into police possession with a recovery memo (Exhibit P.E) which was prepared at the spot. The recovery memo was signed by the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh and the witnesses. The accused appellant was arrested. The case was investigated and after obtaining the sanction (Exhibit P.R) for the prosecution of the appellant which was granted on behalf of the Government of Haryana by the Joint Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, a challan was submitted against the appellant. A separate order (Exhibit P.Q) according sanction for the prosecution of coaccused Satish Kumar Katyal was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department and challan against the coaccused was also submitted simultaneously.

The trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1), Manohar Lal, Accountant of the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Cheeka (P.W. 6), Mangat Singh (P.W. 12), R.A. Bansal (P.W. 13) and Inspector Sultan Singh (P.W. 14).

The statement of the accusedappellant Sat Pal Negi was recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code who denied prosecution evidence against him. The appellant examined two witnesses in defence, namely, Purshotam Dass, Junior Engineer, Office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Cheeka (D.W. 1) and Bachan Singh, Sarpanch of village Majri (D.W. 2) and closed the defence.

The learned Special Judge partly believed the prosecution evidence as regards accusedappellant Sat Pal Negi and convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid. The learned Special Judge, however, acquitted coaccused Satish Kumar Katyal of the charges levelled against him. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant Sat Pal Negi has filed this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. I have been taken through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and judgment of the learned Special Judge by the learned counsel for the parties.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R. (Exhibit P.A.) has been changed altogether in the evidence of the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1). The prosecution has altogether abandoned the case initially taken against the accused persons. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the case, as originally set out in the F.I.R., was that it was co accused Satish Kumar Katyal, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, who had demanded the illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ and had asked the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh to make the payment of the said sum of Rs. 1,000/ to his subordinate Sat Pal Negiappellant. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the next bill shall be prepared only when the said illegal gratification is paid by the complainant. The F.I.R. further alleged that the two accused Satish Kumar Katyal, Block Development and Panchayat Officer and Sat Pal Negi, Junior Engineer, were both in collusion with each other in demanding the payment of illegal gratification. The complainant also made a specific allegation that in this demand of a sum of Rs. 1,000/ as illegal gratification, both the Junior Engineer and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer are the beneficiaries and have share in the amount. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1) entered the witness box, he completely changed the prosecution case and exonerated Block Development and Panchayat Officer Satish Kumar Katyal completely and confined his case only in respect of Junior Engineer Sat Pal Negiappellant. The learned counsel referred to the statement of the complainant made in crossexamination that he had no complainant against Satish Kumar Katyal accused (since acquitted) in the capacity of his being Block Development and Panchayat Officer and that he made no statement anywhere against the said Block Development and Panchayat Officer. He denied having stated before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Surat Singh that the demand of illegal gratification was not made from him by Block Development and Panchayat Officer Satish Kumar Katyal. He also denied having stated about Satish Kumar Katyal, Block Development and Panchayat Officer and Sat Pal Negi, Junior Engineer having joined hands together for obtaining illegal gratification and further that both had a share in the said demand. He was duly confronted with his statement so recorded by the said Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). It will be relevant to note that the informant Jatinder Pal Singh stated in crossexamination that he had not seen the residence of Satish Kumar Katyal, though subsequently he was confronted with his statement recorded in Exhibit D.C. Before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) that, in the first instance, he had gone to the house of Block Development and Panchayat Officer Satish Kumar Katyal and when he was not available, then he had gone to the house of the Junior Engineer Sat Pal Negiappellant and paid the money to him. These contradictions are material and substantial contradictions in the statement of the main witness of the prosecution i.e. the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1). It is quite evident that the complainant had taken absolutely a new case in the witness box and abandoned the allegations made in the F.I.R. and in the statement recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Surat Singh. Now, if Satish Kumar Katyal, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, had nothing to do with the said demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ and he had not asked the informant Jatinder Pal Singh to pay this amount to Sat Pal Negi, Junior Engineer appellant, then there was absolutely no question of making such an allegation in the F.I.R. and before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Surat Singh. It appears that the complainant initially implicated the Block Development and Panchayat Officer as well as the Junior Engineer and made clear and specific allegations against both the them and his consistent stand prior to his entering the witness box had been about the complicity of both the accused, but lateron that case was altogether abandoned. Under these circumstances, it will not be proper and safe to rely on the evidence of the main and star witness of the prosecution, namely, Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1). The only witnesses of the prosecution were Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1) and Mangat Singh (P.W. 2). Mangat Singh did not enter the room and he stood at the door of the house. Thus, only one witness remained inside the room where the money is alleged to have been handed over to the appellant Sat Pal Negi. It is also relevant to note that the members of the raiding party arrived after the money had been paid and placed allegedly in the lower portion of the table. It is also noteworthy that it was only Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W. 1) who had informed the members of the raiding party that the had paid the currency notes to the appellant and the same were placed in the lower portion of the table. In other words, it is not the evidence on record that these currency notes were, in fact, recovered from the person of the appellant.

Under these circumstances, there is no reliable evidence to hold that the currency notes had, in fact, been handed over by the complainant Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W.1) to the appellant. The only witness of the prosecution is Jatinder Pal Singh (P.W.1) and, as mentioned above, he is not at all a reliable witness. The prosecution has, thus, miserably failed to establish the charges against the appellant and he deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appeal is, consequently, allowed, the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Indian Penal Code, are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.