Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

This appeal has arisen out of judgment/order dated 19.1.1988/21.1.1988 passed by Special Judge, Rohtak whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo eighteen months rigorous imprisonment on both the counts. The sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution story lies in a narrow compass as under.

Rajendar Parshad applied for a loan of Rs. 62,500/ for the installation of a foundry at Kosli in district Rohtak. Formal application form Exhibit PC was filled in by him on 13.8.1986. On 14.8.1986, the appellant who was then posted as Instructor, District Kahdi Gram Udyog Rohtak went to Kosli for spot verification, it being part of his duty which was followed by another visit. It is further alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 500/ from Rajender Parshad as illegal gratification and asked him to come to his office at Rohtak on 29.8.1986. Rajender Parshad did not have the said amount nor did he want to pay and, therefore, on 29.8.1986 he went to the Vigilance Office at Rohtak and lodged a report with Inspector Kidar Nath on the basis of which First Information Report Exhibit PG/1 was recorded.

Inspector Kidar Nath organised a raiding party and joined Shri P.C. Gupta, Assistant Conservator of Forests in the same. The notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed back to Rajender Parshad in order to pass them over to the accused on demand and then to give a signal by moving his hand on his head. Shri P.C. Gupta was to act as a shadow witness. His job was to hear the talk between the appellant and the complainant, to see the passing over of money and then to pass the signal on to the raiding party.

Complainant Rajender Parshad went to the office of the appellant and remained with him for about two hours during which period the appellant completed the loan file and passed it on the dispatcher. Then the appellant and the complainant came out of the office and proceeded to a shop in the locality. When they reached the shop, Rajender Parshad gave a signal. Shri P.C. Gupta passed it on to the raiding party. Inspector Kidar Singh rushed to the appellant and asked him to produce the tainted notes. The numbers of the notes were compared with the numbers given in memo Exhibit PL which tallied. Hands of the appellant, the right pocket portion of his pants in which he had put the notes, hands of the complainant and the notes were separately washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and each time the wash became pink. Separate memos Exhibits PM, PN, PQ and PR were prepared in this regard. The wash was made into four separate bottles which were sealed and taken into possession. Similarly, the pants and the notes were also made into sealed parcels and taken into possession. Memos in respect of these seizures were prepared. Four bottles of the wash, pants of the appellant and the notes were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. That Laboratory sent report Exhibit PL indicating that sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein were detected in all those articles.

Sanction Exhibit PB under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was obtained from the Board for the prosecution of the appellant.

After the completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced as noticed earlier.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He took up the following plea :

"I visited the spot on 13.8.1986 and completed the file on 14.8.1986 and gave it in the office and thereafter I had nothing to do with the case. On 22.8.1986, Shri R.S. Mehra, PW4 visited the spot. I had nothing to do with the case.

Rajender Parshad had brought his relation Munshi Ram to my office. They said to me that I should get their application sanctioned by the District Officer and give it to them by hand. I told them to talk to the District Officer themselves. On this, there was an altercation between us. They said that they would settle the score with me. After this threat, they left. Then they implicated me in this case. When I came out of my office, the Vigilance Inspector caught hold of me and took me to the Vigilance Office and they implicated me in this case."

I have Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Vikram Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri D.K. Khanna, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State and perused the entire record.

At the very outset, it may be noticed that the date on which initial demand was made and the fact that the appellant had asked the complainant to see him on 29.8.1986 are conspicuously missing from the First Information Report. There is no other witness regarding the initial demand of bribe by the appellant. Had the appellant demanded the money from the complainant when he made the spot inspection and had the appellant asked the complainant to come to his office on 29.8.1985 with the money, the first anxiety and impulse of the complainant would have to mention these facts in his report which forms the basis of the First Information Report. The complainant in his examinationinchief has stated as under :

"Accused Satbir Singh alongwith his staff came to inspect the site on 14.8.1986. Satbir Singh said to me that I should go to his office on 29.8.1986 with Rs. 500/ and then he would send my case to Panchkula."

In his crossexamination, this witness gave the following version :

"Mehra and others came to see the site, where I had to start work on 22.8.1986. Accused Satbir was also with them. Mehra is District Khadi and Village Industries Officer. After seeing the spot, Mehra did not say anything to me. Accused Satbir Singh said to me that I should go to his office with Rs. 500/. He said this thing to me on 22.8.1986.

xx xx xx xx xx

It was on 22.8.1986 that Satbir Singh made demand of money from me for the first time."

Thus, it would be quite obvious from the extracted portions of the statement of the complainant that he is not sure as to on which date the appellant made the initial demand of bribe. On one hand, he gives the date as 14.8.1986 and on the other, he changed the same to 22.8.1986. He could not reconcile this discrepancy in his statement. He even had the audacity to say that he did not state in his statement in examinationinchief that the appellant had demanded the money on 14.8.1986. He was duly confronted with his statement made in the Court where this fact was specifically recorded. Again he resiled from his statement made in the Court and stated that "I did not tell the court on the last date that the accused had demanded the money on 22.8.1986 because I did not remember this fact." He also candidly admitted that "I did not tell the Inspector (Vigilance) that the accused had asked me to go to him with money on 29.8.1986." The conduct of the complainant in changing his statement at every step shows that he is a liar and not a truthful witness and no reliance be placed on his testimony.

Further, there is no other evidence on the record for corroborating the statement of the complainant regarding the initial demand of bribe. The solitary statement of the complainant on this point does not stand the test of credibility. The complainant being interested in the success of the case, the rule of law and prudence demands that the statement of the complainant should not be acted upon unless corroborated, particularly when the complainant was having grudge against the accused because the latter had not obliged him by making a report at the spot itself and had become his antagonist and was having aversion. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and in the absence of any corroboration to the statement of the complainant, I am of the considered opinion that the initial demand of illegal gratification by the appellant from Rajender Parshad has not been proved beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. This fact alone casts a dent in the prosecution case and has to be viewed alongwith other infirmities in the case.

The positive version of the complainant is that the appellant completed his file in his presence and then handed over the same to the dispatcher but he is contradicted on this point by the statement of Raghbir Singh Mehra, P.W. 4 who was then District Khadi and Village Industries Officer, Jind. He frankly stated that the file of loan case of Rajender Parshad, Exhibit PC, spread into twentythree sheets was handed over to him by the appellant on 28.8.1986. If the file had been handed over to P.W. 4 Raghbir Singh Mehra on 28.8.1986, then there was no occassion for the appellant to complete it on 29.8.1986. The statement of the complainant in this regard lacks plausibility. P.W.4 further admitted that the Instructor only recommends loan application to him and further it was within his competence to recommend the case further or not. This amply proves that the appellant was not the final authority. When it was not certain whether the recommendations of the appellant would be accepted or not, there was no occasion for the complainant to pay any illegal gratification to the appellant. This fact also weakens the prosecution case.

Further, P.W.7 Shri P.C. Gupta, Assistant Conservator of Forests has demolished the entire prosecution case. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. He made the following statement in his crossexamination by the Public Prosecutor :

"I did not make any statement to the police narrating the whole incident though I was with the police throughout as I have stated earlier. I did not hear the accused saying to the complainant to give him money. They were talking with each other but I could not hear that talk. Also I did not see money being given by the complainant to the accused. Similarly, I did not see the accused counting the money or putting it in his pocket."

The learned Public Prosecutor, inspite of searching crossexamination could not elicit anything of vital importance from him so as to throw doubt on his testimony. This witness has emphatically denied the suggestion to the effect that he told the police that the appellant demanded money and complainant had paid the same to him in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that he said in his statement that the appellant counted that money and put the same in the pocket of his pants and he saw it. He also denied that he stated that he gave the signal after seeing the money being passed. He was duly confronted with the relevant portions of his statement Exhibit PU where these facts were recorded. The statement of this witness seems to be very natural and probable. The statement of this witness is fatal to the prosecution case.

The illegal gratification is alleged to have been passed on to the appellant near Karyana shop. P.W.6 Rajendar Parshad has admitted in his crossexamination that the shopkeeper was present there. This witness has further admitted that the washing process and the writing work was carried out in that shop. This shopkeeper was an independent and best witness to have been joined in the raiding party but the Investigating Officer has not given any explanation for this lapse. This infirmity in the prosecution case goes to its root and makes the prosecution story as improbable.

D.W.1 Ram Niwas deposed that tour programme is approved a month in advance. He brought the tour programme of Satbir Singh for the month of August, 1986. On 29.8.1986, Satbir Singh appellant was scheduled to go on tour to Sampla and Rohad. The said tour programme was approved by Shri R.S. Mehra, District Khadi Village Industries Officer, Rohtak on 24.7.1986. If the appellant was to go to tour on 29.8.1986 and was not available in his office then what was the necessity of calling the complainant to his office on 29.8.1986 with the bribe money. This defence evidence improbalise the complainant''s allegations that the appellant had asked him to meet him in his office with the money on 29.8.1986. This part of the prosecution story sounds unnatural and cannot be believed.

For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home charge to the appellant. Therefore, this appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the appellant, if any, shall stand discharged.