Ved Kumar vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Prem Singh had approached the electricity department for release of electricity connection to his residence. In this regard, complainant had deposited the necessary charges. Appellant, who was working as a Junior Engineer at that time, along with Raman Kumar, Junior Engineer came to inspect the site. Appellant demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant for release of his connection. The deal was settled at Rs. 1,500/-. Thereafter, complainant approached vigilance authorities. Complainant produced two currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each and five currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each before Deputy Superintendent of Police (''DSP for short) Rajwant Kumar, who, in turn, returned the same to the complainant after application of phenolphthalein powder (''P-Powder'' for short). Complainant was directed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. Mohan Singh, Assistant Controller and Manjit Singh Assistant Engineer were joined as official witnesses. Ashwani Kumar was nominated as a shadow witness and was instructed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Demonstration with regard to working of the P-Powder was shown to the witnesses. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the office of the accused. Complainant as well as the shadow witness went inside the office of the appellant. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand, who kept the same in his left pocket of his trousers. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP Rajwant Kumar along with other members of the raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. Tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the trousers of the appellant. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the memo already prepared and the numbers of the currency notes tallied. When the left pocket of the trousers of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

Charge was framed against the appellant u/s 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''Act'' for short).

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses during trial.

Appellant when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed as under:-

I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I was never marked the work of the complainant nor I had any right to release the connection to Prem Singh. I have been falsely implicated by the police and the complainant. I had no authority to release the connection, rather on the alleged date of occurrence the file of the complainant had already been closed and the same was deemed to be no more in existence. I had never accompanied Raman Kumar JE to the house of the complainant or I had ever seen him before. No recovery was made from me. The witnesses are the interested witnesses. Raman Kumar JE was the incharge of the said file of Prem Singh and he had already written objections that the connection cannot be released without the removal of the low tension wire. Even the notice had been served upon Prem Singh to get the low tension wire removed. Notice was not complied with and the file was considered to be closed after lapse of notice period. I had never demanded any money from the complainant as alleged. I had given representation to my department but without taking into consideration my representation and without going to the entire record, wrong sanction had been granted. I have been falsely involved in this case." Appellant examined three witnesses in his defence.

The Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 2.2.2005 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 7 and 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant had been falsely involved in this case. In fact, appellant had never dealt with the file with regard to electric connection sought by the complainant. Raman Kumar, Junior Engineer had dealt with the file. A report had been made on the file that the connection could be released after the complainant sought shifting of the low tension wires which were passing through his house. Complainant had failed to do the needful and deposit requisite charges in this regard. Consequently, file of the complainant was consigned. During trial, it had transpired that electric connection had not been released to the complainant as on the second application, moved by the complainant, again a report was made by Hardeep Singh, Junior Engineer that low tension wires were to be shifted before connection could be released to the complainant. It had also transpired during trial that the neighbour of the complainant who had deposited the requisite charges for shifting the low tension wires, had been released electric connection.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses had duly supported the prosecution case and the Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant qua commission of offence punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) of the Act.

In the present case, complainant Prem Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has deposed as per the prosecution story. Statement of the complainant is duly corroborated on material aspects by PW-2 Ashwani Kumar shadow witness, PW-5 Mohan Singh official witness and PW-8 DSP Rajwant Kumar. Although, technically prosecution has established its case by examining the witnesses that appellant was caught red handed while accepting the bribe. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is necessary to examine as to whether the appellant had any occasion to demand or accept bribe money from the complainant. In this regard, cross-examination of the complainant and PW-6 Inderjit Singh as well as statements of defence witnesses are required to be scrutinized. Complainant, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had received a notice that low tension cable was passing over his property and it should be got shifted within 15 days, otherwise his application seeking electric connection would be deemed to be filed. Although, complainant has stated that he had filed the reply to the said notice but no such reply is available on record. Further, appellant has examined DW-2 Mukesh Kumar, who had appeared in the Court along with the relevant record to establish that there was no entry with regard to any reply submitted by the complainant to the office.

In his cross-examination, complainant has further admitted that after the registration of the case, he had again prepared a new file for release of connection. He might have submitted the said application on 29.5.2003. On the said application, Hardeep Singh, Junior Engineer had visited his house. He also admitted that till date connection had not been released to him on the said application. Hardeep Singh, Junior Engineer had also made a report that low tension wires were to be shifted before release of connection and in the absence of the same, the connection could not be released to him. He also admitted that now he had got the cable shifted about two months ago. Shifting of the cable was done by a new comer in the locality who had constructed a house and had deposited the charges in this regard. The requisite charges had not been deposited by him (complainant). He also admitted that shifting charges were about Rs. 8,000/-.

DW-3 Hardeep Singh, Junior Engineer has deposed to the effect that an application was moved by the complainant for release of electric connection to his house on 29.5.2003. The said application was marked to him. He had issued notice Ex. DE/6. Complainant had not approached the office thereafter and the file was closed after the period mentioned in the notice.

Thus, from the above evidence on record, it transpires that complainant had approached the department for release of the electric connection. The said connection was not released to the complainant because he had to deposit the requisite charges for shifting the low tension wires which were passing near/over his house. Complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that his neighbour had sought shifting of the said low tension wires and had deposited the requisite charges. In the present case, during trial, electric connection had not been released to the complainant as he had failed to do the needful. Although, complainant had stated that he had replied to the notice issued to him by the department but he had failed to produce copy of the said reply on record and rather the record of the department, produced by DW-2, reveals that no such reply had been submitted by the complainant. Thereafter another application was moved by the complainant, again a notice was issued to the complainant to get the low tension wires shifted and deposit the requisite charges but the complainant had failed to do so. Due to this reason, electric connection was not released to the complainant.

Further, DW-1 Raman Kumar has deposed that in fact, he had been handed over the file with regard to release of electric connection to the complainant. As per rules, electric connection could not be released to the complainant as low tension wires/line was passing over the site in question. Complainant was required to get the said line shifted from the place by making an application to the department and was required to deposit the requisite charges in this regard. Complainant had failed to do the needful and, consequently, his file in this regard was consigned. PW-6 Inderjit Singh had also deposed in his cross-examination that the electric connection file of the complainant was marked to Raman Kumar, Junior Engineer and he had made a report on the file on 16.2.2003 that on account of the fact that low tension wires were passing over the house of the complainant, electric connection could not be released to him before the wires were shifted. The said witness after going through the file Ex. DA stated that there was nothing on record to suggest that the file in question was ever marked to the appellant.

The above facts lead to the inference that possibility that the appellant was falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out as the complainant had not been released the connection on account of his own default. Further, appellant had not been entrusted with the case file of the complainant. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Further, whenever there is doubt in the prosecution story, the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. Since in the present case, prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 2.2.2005 of conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. Consequently, appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.