State of H.P. vs Sabda Devi

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment, dated 24.4.2007, of learned Special Judge, Kangra whereby Respondent Sabda Devi, who was tried for offences, Under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been acquitted.

Prosecution''s case may be summed up thus. P.W. 6 Des Raj visited Police Station, Anti Corruption Zone, Dharamsala on 5.9.1997 and lodged FIR Ex. P.W. 6/A, that he was unemployed and wanted employment, as a daily wager with Irrigation and Public Health Department, for which he sought recommendation from the Pradhan of the Panchayat, Savita Kumari , who told that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was required to be paid to Inder Mohan Walia, President of the Block and only then employment could be arranged. He again went to Pradhan, Savita Kumari on 5.9.1997 and this time, she told him to arrange Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/- and submit application, alongwith Character Certificate and two other documents. His report was entered in the Register of FI Rs. He was required to produce currency notes of Rs. 1500/-. He produced ten notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each and 10 notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/-each. A memo, regarding those currency notes, was prepared. Numbers of the currency notes were mentioned in that memo, Ex. P.W. 2/A. Those currency notes were then treated with phenolphthalein powder and returned to P.W. 6 Des Raj, with the direction not to fiddle with them and to pay the same to the Pradhan of the Panchayat. It was also demonstrated to P.W. 6 Des Raj and P.W. 5 Rakesh Sharma, shadow witness how solution of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate turned pink, on being added to each other. Des Raj, P.W. 6 was required to proceed to the house of Respondent, in the company of shadow witness, P.W. 5, Rakesh Kumar. After some time, shadow witness Rakesh Sharma, P.W. 5 gave a prefixed signal to the waiting police party, upon which the police party, headed by P.W. 9 N.D. Sharma, Dy. S.P., entered the house of the Respondent. Respondent was caught hold of by her wrist and was told that she had accepted bribe. Her hands were got washed. Solution of hand wash, on being added to sodium carbonate, turned pink. Respondent was then required to produce currency notes, accepted by her as bribe. She took out the money from her purse and handed over to P.W. 9 N.D. Sharma, Dy. S.P. Numbers of currency notes tallied with the numbers, which were mentioned in memo Ex. P.W. 2/A. Hand wash was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who opined that it had traces of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate. His report is Ex. P.W. 9/C.

On completion of investigation, report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, alongwith relevant papers. Learned Special Judge, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing both the sides and perusing the record, found that a prima facie case was made out against the Respondent, Under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She was charged accordingly. On her pleading not guilty, she was put on trial.

Prosecution examined nine witnesses, including P.W. 6 Des Raj, complainant, P.W. 5 Rakesh Sharma, shadow witness and P.W. 9 N.D. Sharma, Dy. S.P., who conducted the raid. Respondent, in her statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, denied having demanded or accepted bribe. Learned trial Court has acquitted the Respondent, holding that the case of the prosecution, does not stand proved.

I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned Counsel, representing the Respondent, and gone through the record.

It may be stated at the very outset that the complaint of P.W. 6 Des Raj was not against the present Respondent, whose name is Sabda Devi and who is Pradhan of a Panchayat, different from the Panchayat, in which P.W. 6 Des Raj has his residence. Complaint was against Savita Kumari, President of Gram Panchayat, in which village of P.W. 6 Des Raj, falls. In the FIR Ex. P.W. 6/A, it is not Sabda Devi, but Savita Kumari, who is named as accused. P.W. 6 Des Raj, while in the witness box, admitted that he had lodged FIR against Savita Kumari, Pradhan of her own Gram Panchayat, name of which is Galoda and not against the Respondent, who is President of Gram Panchayat, Kapoda. Now, when the FIR was not against the present Respondent, who is otherwise also not the Pradhan of the Panchayat, under which the village of Des Raj P.W. 6 falls, but was against Savita Kumari, Pradhan of the Panchayat, within the jurisdiction of which village of Des Raj P.W. 6 falls, how could have Dy.S.P.N.D. Sharma, examined as P.W. 9, directed P.W. 6 Des Raj to pay bribe money to the Respondent and to have then raided her house and recovered the money from her purse. This fact, by itself, speaks of some hanky panky in the matter. That hanky panky was suggested to the witnesses of the prosecution, including Des Raj P.W. 6. It was suggested to the witnesses that one Veena Kumari, Director of H.P. Housing Board, who was an active worker of Congress Party, had been expelled from that Party, because of which she lost the post of Director, Housing Board also, on account of a complaint, having been lodged against her by the present Respondent. It appears that P.W. 6 Des Raj was used as a pawn, to falsely implicate the present Respondent, but when he went to lodge the FIR, he probably forgot the name of the Respondent and got the name of the Pradhan of his own Panchayat recorded in the FIR.

Also, there are contradictions in the earliest version, Ex. P.W 6/A and the testimony of P.W. 6 Des Raj, which again give the impression that the Respondent had been falsely implicated. According to the FIR, bribe money had been demanded by Savita Kumari, for being paid to one Inder Mohan Walia, President of Block Smiti. However, in his deposition as P.W. 6, Des Raj stated that money was demanded for being paid to Kewal Singh Pathania, who was then a Minister of H.P.

In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. Hence, appeal is dismissed.