State of Haryana vs Sudesh Kamal

S.S. Grewal, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of Special Judge, Faridkot, dated 6th of September, 1985, whereby, Sudesh Kamal accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Sudesh Kamal accused was posted as Senior Clerk in the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot. Vir Chand complainant applied for a loan of Rs. 10,000/ and his loan case was forwarded to the Project Officer, Rural Agency, Faridkot, by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Baghapurana. On 31.10.1984, the complainant went to the office of the accused in connection with his loan case and there in the presence of Mukhtiar Singh PW the accused demanded Rs. 100/ from the complainant for clearing his loan. The complainant promised to pay illegal gratification to the accused. On 2.11.1984, the complainant accompanied by Mukhtiar Singh went to the office of Inspector, Vigilance and there his statement was recorded by the Vigilance Inspector to whom the complainant also handed over currency note worth rupees one hundred. The number of the currency not was duly noted. Inspector Vigilance then applied phenolphthalein powder to the current note which was hi handed over to Vir Chand complainant who was directed to hand over the currency note to the accused on demand. Niranjan Singh was also joined in the raiding party which went to the office of the accused. Vir Chand and Mukhtiar Singh went inside the office of the accused, whereas, the remaining police party remained in the street at a short distance from the said office. The complainant handed over the currency note of Rs. 100/ Ex P1 to the accused as bribe who put the same in the pocket of his shirt. Mukhtiar Singh who was acting as a shadow witness gave a signal and then the remaining raiding party reached there. After disclosing his identity, the Inspector Vigilance searched the accused and currency note of Rs. 100/denomination was recovered from the pocket of his shirt. The shirt, of the accused was got removed and its pocket portion was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate and its colour turned pink. The hands of the accused .were also washed in a fresh solution of sodium carbonate which also turned pink. The solutions were sealed in different nips and were taken into possession through seizure memos. Currency note Ex P1 and shirt Ex. P2 were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Loan application of the complainant was taken into possession by the Vigilance Inspector. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation he was challenged.

Charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case the prosecution besides examining the other witnesses examined Vir Chand complainant as PW. 4, Mukhtiar Singh PW. 5, Ramesh Kumar PW 6 and Inspector Sarwan Singh as PW 8. All of them supported the prosecution story as stated earlier.

The accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations appearing in evidence against him and pleaded false implication. According. him, Vir Chand came to his office on 31.10.1984 and asked him to put up his file before Assistant Project Officer Mr. Syal that very day. He showed his helplessness because Mr. Syal was not in the office. This. enraged Vir Chand who had an altercation with the accused and both of them exchanged abuses in the presence of other staff members. Vir Chand threatened to teach a lesson to the accused. On 2.11.1984, his office was closed due to the sad demise of the Prime Minister. He was summoned from his house by the police and in the presence of Charan Dass, Jumna Ram and others and was falsely implicated in this case in connivance with Vir Chand complainant and others. It was further alleged that Niranjan Singh being close relation of Constable Sahib Singh of Vigilance Stiff, was a made up witness. He further stated that he got his pay from the house of the Accountant Shri Romesh Kumar on 2.11.1984.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the testimony of Vir Chand complainant coupled with the testimony Mukhtiar Singh shadow witness was sufficient to prove that the accused had demanded Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification from the complainant and currency note worth Rs. 100/ Ex. P1 was handed over by Vir Chand to the accused as illegal gratification on his demand. As far as initial demand of illegal gratification by the accused from the complainant on 31.10.1984 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that Mukhtiar Singh nowhere supported the case put forth in this regard by Vir Chand complainant. Neither Vir Chand nor Mukhtiar Singh shadow witness stated that the accused had made any demand of Rs. 100/ from Vir Chand on 2.11.1984. In view of the infirmities referred to above the learned trial court rightly disbelieved the prosecution version about the alleged demand of Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification by the accused from the complainant in order to render him help in his loan case.

The prosecution version about payment of Rs. 100/ by the complainant to the accused or the acceptance of such illegal gratification by the latter is also not free from doubt. The complainant initially deposed that the currency note given by him to the Vigilance Inspector was retained by the Inspector who took that currency note to the office of the accused and there handed over the same to the accused. A specific question put to him by the State counsel in this regard, the complainant did state that he handed over the currency note of Rs. 100/ to the accused who accepted the same and put in his pocket. In the crossexamination this witness admitted that he had forcibly put the currency note in the pocket of the accused who resisted the attempt and was not willing to accept the same. Both Mukhtiar Singh PW 5 and Niranjan an Singh. PW 7 admitted in their crossexamination that the accused had represented to the Inspector that Vir Chand acted with highhandedness and forcibly put the currency note in his pocket. Apart from the aforesaid material infirmities the version given by the complainant that his statement was recorded by the Vigilance Inspector on 31.10.1984 is belied by the testimony of Mukhtiar Singh PW 5 and Sarwan Singh Inspector Vigilance PW 8. It has also come in evidence that Niranjan Singh who allegedly conducted the personal search of the accused was not searched at all before he conducted the search of the accused.

All the aforesaid material contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case cast grave doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story particularly with regard to the alleged demand or the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. The learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused and the order passed by it cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.