Vimal Kumar and Anil Kumar vs State of Punjab

Jora Singh, J.—Crl. Appeal No. 1310-SB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 1361-SB of 2007 were preferred by Vimal Kumar and Anil Kumar, respectively, to impugn the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.7.2007 rendered by Special Judge, Rupnagar, in Corruption Case No. RT-7 of 14.5.1999/13.5.2006, arising out of FIR No. 5 dated 14.3.1997 under Sections 7/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act''), PS Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad, Punjab State, Mohali.

By the said judgment, they were convicted under Sections 7/13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 months each.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Gian Chand, complainant, was the attorney of Rattan Goyal, Proprietor of M/s Rattan and Rattan Associates. Rattan Goyal was the Contractor. Work of Municipal Council, Mohali, was allotted to Rattan Goyal. Rs. 91,000/- was due from MC, Mohali. Gian Chand being the attorney of Rattan Goyal had approached the officials of MC, Mohali, to release Rs. 91,000/- on 13.3.1997. Gian Chand along with Mehar Singh had met Suresh Kumar, Clerk-cum-Cashier, and enquired about the bill. Suresh Kumar repleid that no bill for payment was received by him. Complainant was directed to contact Anil Kumar, JE. After that, Gian Chand had met Anil Kumar, JE, who demanded 12.5% commission for passing the bill, i.e., Rs. 11,200/-, out of which, Rs. 7,200/- as commission is payable to him, SDO, ME and EO and Rs. 4,000/- be paid to Vimal Kumar as commission payable to the President, Accountant and Draftsman. Regarding demand of 12.5% as commission, complainant had met ME, SDO and EO. All replied that demand of 12.5% as commission is correct one. Complainant was directed to pay commission to the JE. After that, complainant had met the President, Suresh Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Vimal Kumar. They directed to deposit Rs. 4000/- as commission with Vimal Kumar. Anil Kumar and Vimal Kumar directed the complainant to visit the office on 14.3.1997 at 12.15 P.M. with payment. Gian Chand, complainant, had gone to the office of Vigilance Bureau. Entire episode was brought to the notice of DSP, Vigilance Bureau. Statement of Gian Chand (Ex.P.W.9/A) was recorded.

Complainant had produced 13 currency notes, each of the denomination of Rs. 500/- and 7 currency notes, each of the denomination of Rs. 100/-. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and numbers of currency notes were noted. Currency notes were returned to the complainant vide memo (Ex.P.W. 1/A). Complainant had produced 5 currency notes, each of the denomination of Rs. 500/- and 15 currency notes, each of the denomination of Rs. 100/-. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and numbers of currency notes were noted. Currency notes were returned to the complainant vide memo (Ex.P.W. 1/B). Gurmel Singh was joined as shadow witness with direction to accompany the complainant and to over hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and after acceptance of illegal gratification to give agreed signal to the raiding party. Solution was prepared by adding Sodium Carbonate. Demonstration was given to the complainant and the shadow witness as to how colour of solution was to change. Mehar Singh and Mahesh Chander, JE, were also joined in the raiding party. Complainant and shadow witness were sent to the office of the accused and remaining members of the raiding party had stayed at some distance from the office of the accused. After receipt of agreed signal from Gurmel Singh, IO along with other officials had gone to the office of the accused. IO disclosed his identity and confirmed the names of the accused. Both the accused were apprehended. After that, a glass of water was arranged. Solution was prepared by adding sodium carbonate. There was no change in the colour of water. Then Anil Kumar was directed to wash his hands in the solution. Then colour of solution turned light pink. Solution was transferred into a nip and sealed by the IO with his own seal bearing impression ''DS''. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On personal search of Anil Kumar, Rs. 7,200/- was recovered from the right side pocket of pants worn by him. Numbers of recovered tainted currency notes were got compared with the numbers of currency notes already noted in the memo and the same were found tallying. Recovered currency notes were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses. Another glass of water was arranged. Solution was prepared by adding sodium carbonate. There was no change in the colour of water. Then pocket of the pants worn by Anil Kumar was washed in the said solution. Then colour of solution turned light pink. Solution was transferred into a nip and sealed by the IO with his own seal bearing impression ''DS''. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.

A glass of water was arranged. Solution was prepared by adding sodium carbonate. There was no change in the colour of water. Then Vimal Kumar was directed to wash his hands in the solution. Then colour of solution turned light pink. Solution was transferred into a nip and sealed by the IO with his own seal bearing impression ''DS''. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On personal search of Vimal Kumar, Rs. 4,000/- was recovered from the left side pocket of pants worn by him. Numbers of recovered tainted currency notes were got compared with the numbers of currency notes already noted in the memo and the same were found tallying. Recovered currency notes were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Another glass of water was arranged. Solution was prepared by adding sodium carbonate. There was no change in the colour of water. Then pocket of the pants worn by Vimal Kumar was washed in the said solution. Then colour of solution turned light pink. Solution was transferred into a nip and sealed by the IO with his own seal bearing impression ''DS''. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Personal search memos of both the accused were also prepared. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana. After receipt of report from the office of FSL and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court.

Accused were charged under Sections 7/13(2) of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution examined number of witnesses.

P.W. 1 Gurmail Singh is the shadow witness and supported the prosecution story by saying that he had joined the raiding party headed by DSP Darshan Singh. Demonstration was given by the IO as to how colour of solution was to be changed. He along with the complainant had gone to the office of the accused. As per demand of the accused, marked currency notes were handed over to the accused Agreed signal was given to the raiding party. Raiding party came to the office of the accused. Both the accused were arrested. Solution was prepared by adding sodium carbonate. Colour of solution did not change. Then hands of Anil Kumar were got washed. Then colour of solution turned light pink. Solution was transferred into a nip and sealed by the IO with his own seal bearing impression ''DS''. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On personal search of Anil Kumar, Rs. 7,200/- was recovered from the pocket of pants worn by him. Numbers of recovered tainted currency notes were got compared with the numbers of currency notes already noted in the memo and the same were found tallying. Recovered currency notes were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses. Again solution was prepared in the same manner. Portion of pocket of pants worn by Anil Kumar was washed in the said solution. Then colour of solution turned light pink. Solution was transferred into a nip and sealed by the IO with his own seal bearing impression ''DS''. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Similarly, marked currency notes were recovered from Vimal Kumar.

P.W. 2 V.K. Khanna stated that on the date of recovery, Anil Kumar was serving as JE. Ex.P.W. 2/A is the copy of service book. Posting order is Ex.P.W. 2/B and appointment letter is Ex.P.W. 2/C.

P.W. 3 Mahesh Chander stated that he joined the raiding party headed by DSP Darshan Singh but no recovery was effected in his presence. There was no hand wash in his presence.

P.W. 4 Constable Ajit Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.P.W. 4/A).

P.W. 5 Sunil Kumar Gulati stated that Vimal Kumar was serving as Draftsman and his duty was to prepare rough cost estimate of construction work. Anil Kumar, JE, was to prepare bills. Entry in the MB was made on 10.2.1997, signed by Anil Kumar. Final bill (Ex.DA) was signed by Anil Kumar and forwarded to AME on the same day.

P.W. 6 Paramjit Singh stated that sanction was accorded to launch prosecution against Anil Kumar.

P.W. 7 Rajinder Singh stated that bill was prepared and signed by Anil Kumar. Vimal Kumar, Draftsman, was to prepare rough cost estimate.

P.W. 8 HC Charat Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.P.W. 8/A).

P.W. 9 Gian Chand is the complainant. He has reiterated his stand before the police.

P.W. 10 DSP Darshan Singh is the Investigating Officer.

P.W. 11 Bhajan Singh, brought the sanction order (Ex.P.W. 11/A) to launch prosecution against Anil Kumar.

P.W. 12 Harjap Singh was the member of raiding party. He has supported the version of the complainant.

After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.

Defence version of the accused was that they were falsely implicated in this case. No recovery was effected from them. Harinder Pal Singh Billa was the President of MC, Mohali, and there was party faction in MC, Mohali. Gian Chand was also Municipal Councillor in MC, Mohali. Gian Chand was the supporter of Manjit Singh, Vice President, MC, Mohali. Second group was headed by Harinder Pal Singh Billa. Manjit Singh was pressurizing them not to obey the orders of the President but being the employees of MC, Mohali, they were bound to obey the orders of President, MC, Mohali. Bill of M/s Rattan and Rattan was also sent to AME for payment on 10.2.1997. Vimal Kumar was simply to prepare rough cost estimate. Bill was to be prepared by Anil Kumar.

In defence, D.W. 1 Satpal Nagpal brought record regarding bank account of M/s Rattan and Rattan.

D.W. 2 Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, has compared the disputed signatures of Rattan Goyal on the power of attorney with standard signatures of Rattan Goyal and after comparison opined that disputed signatures are not tallying with the standard signatures.

After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the Appellants and from the perusal of evidence on the file, Appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.

I have heard learned defnece counsel for the Appellants, learned State Counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file.

Learned defence Counsel for the Appellants, argued that Anil Kumar was serving as JE and he was to prepare bill. Entry was made in the MB on 10.2.1997. After preparing the bill, same was sent to AME on the same day. After the bill was prepared and sent to AME, then there was no question to demand illegal gratification. Vimal Kumar was serving as Draftsman and he was to prepare rough cost estimate of construction work. After rough cost estimate is prepared, then tenders are floated. Work is allotted to the Contractor and after that bill is prepared and cleared by the Accounts Branch. In the present case, there was no question of demand of illegal gratification by Vimal Kumar because Vimal Kumar had simply prepared rough cost estimate. After that, bill was prepared by Anil Kumar and was forwarded to AME on 10.2.1997. This fact was admitted by Sunil Kumar, EO, and Rajinder Singh, Clerk. Argued that Gian Chand, complainant, claimed himself to be the attorney of Rattan Goyal. Power of attorney was executed on 13.3.1997. That means, in view of power of attorney dated 13.3.1997, Gian Chand had contacted the Appellants to issue cheque. On 13.3.1997, Gian Chand had met Suresh Kumar, but Suresh Kumar was not examined to state that complainant had met him and he had directed him to contact Anil Kumar. Evidence further shows that complainant had met ME, SDO, EO, President and Vijay Kumar, but they were not examined as to whether they had told the complainant that demand of Anil Kumar and Vimal Kumar regarding payment of Rs. 11,200/- as commission is correct one. Gian Chand when appeared in Court, then in examination-in-chief stated that he had met the Appellants on 13.3.1997 and the Appellants had demanded their commission. He has not stated a word that Mehar Singh was also with him. Gian Chand in examination-in-chief stated that he had met the higher authorities on 13.3.1997 and power of attorney was shown to the DSP. Information was also given to Rattan Goyal regarding demand of commission. Then Rattan Goyal was requested to execute power of attorney. On 13.3.1997, he had gone to the office of Vigilance Bureau with power of attorney. Before 13.3.1997, Anil Kumar had met him 5/6 times. Draftsman was simply to prepare rough cost estimate. Lastly admitted that there was party faction in MC, Mohali. IO in cross-examination admitted that for the first time, complainant had met him on 14.3.1997. Anil Kumar was to prepare bill and payment was to be released by the Accounts Branch. Mahesh Chander was with the raiding party but he did not support the prosecution story. Gurmail Singh was joined as shadow witness but he had not gone to the office of the Appellants. Gurmail Singh in examination-in-chief stated that Mehar Singh was also with the complainant. Complainant had gone inside, whereas he had stayed near the gate. Complainant came out and told that payment was made. Then he (Gurmail Singh) gave agreed signal to the raiding party. In cross-examination, Gurmail Singh admitted that 3-4 cases were registered against the employees of his department. He is from Mandi Board. Argued that if Gian Chand was the attorney of Rattan Goyal, then there was no question of demand of illegal gratification because Vimal Kumar, Draftsman, was to prepare rough costs estimate. Anil Kumar was to prepare bill. Bill was prepared on 10.2.1997 and was sent to AME on the same day. After the bill was sent to AME, then there was no question of demand of commission. In fact, there was party faction in MC, Mohali. Due to party faction, Appellants were falsely implicated in this case.

Learned State Counsel argued that Rs. 91,000/- was due from MC, Mohali. Payment was payable to Rattan Goyal, Contractor. Rattan Goyal had executed power of attorney in favour of Gian Chand. To collect payment, Gian Chand had gone to the office of MC, Mohali. Anil Kumar and Vimal Kumar had demanded commission @ 12.5%. Rs. 7,200/- was paid to Anil Kumar and Rs. 4,000/- to Vimal Kumar. Recovery of tainted currency notes was from the Appellants. Hand wash supports the version of the complainant. Pockets of pants worn by the Appellants were also washed. Colour of solution had changed to light pink in both the cases. If bill was prepared on 10.2.1997, then there was no idea to effect recovery of marked currency notes from the Appellants. No evidence on the file that there was party faction amongst the President and Vice President of MC, Mohali, and the Appellants are the supporters of one party. Minor discrepancies in the statements of P.Ws. Discrepancies rather show that the story is natural one.

Admittedly, Anil Kumar was serving as JE, whereas Vimal Kumar as Draftsman in MC, Mohali, at the time of raid. This fact is also an admitted one that Rattan Goyal was the Contractor. Work was allotted to him. Rs. 91,000/- was due from MC, Mohali, payable to Rattan Goyal. According to the story, complainant is the attorney of Rattan Goyal and to collect payment on behalf of Rattan Goyal, complainant had gone to the office of MC, Mohali. To release payment, Appellants had demanded illegal gratification. As per demand, illegal gratification was paid to the Appellants. Tainted currency notes were recovered from the Appellants, whereas defence version of the Appellants was that there was party faction in MC, Mohali. Harinder Pal Singh Billa was the President, whereas Manjit Singh was the Vice President. Manjit Singh was pressurizing the Appellants not to obey the orders of the President. So, due to party faction, Appellants were falsely implicated in this case. No question of demand of illegal gratification after the bill was sent to AME on 10.2.1997. Now the question is whether prosecution story inspires confidence or defence version seems to be more probable.

Gian Chand, complainant, in examination-in-chief stated that he was the attorney of Rattan Goyal. Rs. 91,000/- was due from MC, Mohali. As attorney of Rattan Goyal, he had gone to the office of MC, Mohali, and contacted Suresh Kumar and made enquiry about the cheque. Suresh Kumar replied that he has not received cheque and directed to contact Anil Kumar. When he contacted Anil Kumar, then he (Anil Kumar) demanded 12.5% as commission, i.e., Rs. 11,200/-, out of which, Rs. 7,200/- payable to him, SDO, ME and EO and Rs. 4,000/- to Vimal Kumar, payable to the President, Accountant and Draftsman. Vimal Kumar was the Draftsman. Matter was brought to the notice of higher authorities but they had also approved the demand of commission @ 12.5%. Matter was brought to the notice of Rattan Goyal that Appellants are demanding commission @ 12.5%. Rattan Goyal was requested to execute power of attorney. Power of attorney dated 13.3.1997 was executed in his favour. Regarding demand of illegal gratification, he had contacted DSP, Vigilance Bureau, because Appellants had directed him to visit the office again on 14.3.1997 with payment. Gian Chand did not state a word that Mehar Singh was also with him on 13.3.1997 when he had gone to the office of MC, Mohali, and had contacted Suresh Kumar or the Appellants. As per story, on 13.3.1997, he had gone to the office of MC, Mohali, and contacted the Appellants when they demanded their commission. Then he had contacted Rattan Goyal and brought to his notice that Appellants are demanding commission. Rattan Goyal was requested to execute power of attorney. Power of attorney was executed and the same was shown to DSP, Vigilance. Complainant also admitted that before 13.3.1997, he had met Appellants 5-6 times. On 13.3.1997, documents were given to the Vigilance Department. Again said documents were given on 14.3.1997. Complainant also admitted that he was Municipal Councillor and there was party faction in MC, Mohali. Draftsman was simply to prepare rough cost estimate. So, one thing is clear from the statement of Gian Chand that he was Municipal Councillor in MC, Mohali. At the time of raid, there was party faction in MC, Mohali. Before execution of power of attorney, he had met the Appellants but they were demanding illegal gratification, then Rattan Goyal was requested to execute power of attorney. But statement of Gian Chand inspires no confidence because there was party faction in MC, Mohali. He was the Municipal Councillor in MC, Mohali. Appellants being the employees of MC, Mohali, were not expected to demand illegal gratification from the Municipal Councillor. Before 13.3.1997, Gian Chand was not the attorney of Rattan Goyal. So, there was no idea to contact the Appellants 56 times earlier to 13.3.1997 to make payment. Gian Chand was very much certain that after the demand of illegal gratification, story was brought to the notice of Rattan Goyal and Rattan Goyal was requested to execute power of attorney. But statement of Gian Chand is to the effect that he was the attorney of Rattan Goyal. Rs. 91,000/- was due from MC, Mohali, and to collect payment as attorney of Rattan Goyal, he had gone to the office of MC, Mohali, and contacted Suresh Kumar. Suresh Kumar was not produced by the prosecution to state that on 13.3.1997, he had met the complainant. There was enquiry by the complainant regarding cheque. Then complainant was directed to contact the Appellants.

Statement (Ex.P.W. 9/A) further shows that after the demand of 12.5% as commission, then complainant had contacted ME, SDO, EO, President and Vijay Kumar and they had approved the demand of 12.5% as commission but none of them was produced by the prosecution. According to the FIR, Gian Chand was directed to visit the office on 14.3.1997 with payment at about 12.15 P.M. Mehar Singh was with the complainant but complainant when examined as P.W. 9, then did not state a word that Mehar Singh was accompanying him when there was demand of illegal gratification by the Appellants. Anil Kumar had prepared MB. Payment was to be released by the Accounts Branch. Complainant had also admitted that Draftsman was to prepare rough cost estimate only.

Sunil Kumar, EO, as P.W. 5 stated that Anil Kumar was to prepare bill. Vimal Kumar, Draftsman, was to prepare rough cost estimate of construction work. MB was prepared by Anil Kumar and entry was made on 10.2.1997. Entry was signed by Anil Kumar. Final bill (Ex.DA) was signed by Anil Kumar and forwarded to AME on the same day.

Rajinder Singh, Clerk, while appearing as P.W. 7, then stated that Anil Kumar prepared and signed the bill on 10.2.1997. Vimal Kumar was simply to prepare rough cost estimate. In the MB, entry was made by Anil Kumar on 10.2.1997 and the same was forwarded to AME on the same day. After that, no role of Anil Kumar. Gian Chand was Municipal Councillor in MC, Mohali, on that day. So, from the statements of Sunil Kumar and Rajinder Singh, one thing is clear that Draftsman was simply to prepare rough cost estimate. After preparation of rough cost estimate, then tenders are floated. After acceptance of tenders, work is executed by the Contractor. After execution of work, bill is prepared by the JE. Entry is made in the MB. Final payment is to be released by the Accounts Branch. In the present case, Vimal Kumar as Draftsman was to prepare rough cost estimate. Evidence is silent as to whether rough estimate was prepared by Vimal Kumar or by some other Draftsman. Suppose, estimate was prepared by Vimal Kumar, then after preparation of estimate, no role of Vimal Kumar.

After the work was allotted to M/s Rattan and Rattan, part payment was made to Rattan Goyal. Admittedly on 13.3.1997, Rs. 91,000/- was due from MC, Mohali, payable to Rattan Goyal, but before 13.3.1997, Anil Kumar, JE, had prepared bill. Entry was made in the MB on 10.2.1997. After preparing final bill (Ex.DA) and signing the same by Anil Kumar, bill was forwarded to AME on the same day. After the bill was prepared and forwarded to AME, then no role of Anil Kumar because ultimately, payment was to be released by the Accounts Branch.

In 2010 (1) RCR (Cri.) 324, Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab, there was demand of illegal gratification- Trap was laid- Recovery was effected- Raiding party failed to check whether bribe receiver would be in a position to confer some favour or not before conducting such raid which is obligatory- Accused was acquitted.

In Babu Lal Bajpai Vs. State of U.P., - Acceptance of bribe- Defence that complainant tried to thrust money in pocket of accused who resisted and had thrown the same on floor- Version of accused supported by independent witness- No motive for demanding or accepting bribe proved, as no bill of complainant contractor was pending with accused.

In 2004 (4) RCR (Cri.) 655, Mehar Chand v. State of Haryana, Trap laid by police and tainted money recovered from accused but not established what was the base of payment of bribe- Accused had already done the work of complainant before the trap was laid- Conviction was set aside because prosecution was to show that the official was in a position to perform certain official acts of which the aggrieved party would have received some benefit.

In 2010 (3) RCR (Cri.) 499, Prabhu Dayal v. State of Haryana, Acquittal in corruption case- Evidence shows that draft had already been handed over to the complainant two days earlier to the date of occurrence by the dispatcher- Story was ignored.

In 2011 (1) RCR (Cri.) 54, Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhwinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, Conviction under the Corruption Act- Material discrepancies in the statements of complainant and shadow witness with regard to visit to office- No explanation rendered by prosecution for non- joining of any independent witness- Official witness who joined raiding party also not supported the case of prosecution- Currency notes were not handed over to accused- Bribe was given on 24.4.1998, whereas jamabandi stood prepared on 23.4.1998- Opined that complainant need not to give bribe when copy of jamabandi was already prepared- Prosecution story was ignored.

In the present case, before allotment of work to M/s Rattan and Rattan, rough cost estimate was prepared by Vimal Kumar. After execution of work, part payment was made to the Contractor, i.e., Rattan Goyal. According to the story, Rs. 91,000/- was due from MC, Mohali. Anil Kumar, JE, had prepared bill. Entry was made in the MB on 10.2.1997. Entry was signed by Anil Kumar. Final bill (Ex.DA) signed by Anil Kumar was forwarded to AME on the same day. So, after preparation of bill, there was no reason to demand 12.5% as commission on behalf of the President, Accountant, ME, SDO, EO. Gian Chand was Municipal Councillor in MC, Mohali, at the relevant time and had the knowledge that rough cost estimate is prepared by Draftsman and after that, tenders are floated. Then work is allotted to the contractor. After allotment of work, then bill is prepared by the JE. Entry is made in the MB. Bill along with MB is sent to the higher authorities. Ultimately, payment is to be released by the Accounts Branch. When the Appellant had already prepared bill and bill along with MB was sent to AME or SDO, then there was no question of demand of illegal gratification.

As discussed earlier, Mehar Singh was with the complainant when there was demand of illegal gratification. Mehar Singh was also with the raiding party on 14.3.1997 but he was not joined as shadow witness. Complainant did not state a word that Mehar Singh was also with him when he contacted the Appellants on 13.3.1997 and there was demand of illegal gratification in his presence and on 14.3.1997, Mehar Singh was with the raiding party.

According to the story, one Gurmail Singh, employee of Mandi Board, was joined as shadow witness. Gurmail Singh stated that Mehar Singh was accompanying the complainant. Complainant had gone inside the office. He had stayed near the gate. Complainant came out and told that payment was given. Then he gave agreed signal to the raiding party. In cross-examination admitted that 3/4 cases were registered against the employees of Mandi Board. Lastly, stated that Mahesh Chander, JE, was joined in the raiding party.

Mahesh Chander appeared as P.W. 5 and stated that he was with the raiding party. But he has not supported the story. He categorically stated that there was no recovery in his presence. No hand wash was in his presece.

In Ayyasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , Case under the Corruption Act- No independent evidence- Evidence not proving guilt against accused beyond reasonable doubt- Prosecution story was ignored.

In 2008 (2) RCR (Cri.) 335, Anand Parkash v. State of Haryana, Case under the Corruption Act- There was no witness to dema nd of bribe except the complainant- Bribe giver is normally to be treated as an accomplice- There should be independent corroboration before recording conviction.

In 2005 (4) RCR (Cri.) 716, R.V. Subba Rao v. State, Recovery of Rs. 300/- from accused as bribe money as a result of raid but no witness to demand of bribe except complainant- No evidence that accused did any official favour- Conviction was set aside. Mere recovery of bribe money is not sufficient for conviction.

In 1997 (2) RCR (Cri.) 330, Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, Demand of bribe by accused and its acceptance not proved by independent evidence- Independent witness to this effect withdrawn by prosecution- Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

In 2010 (1) RCR (Cri.) 892, Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, Case under the Corruption Act- Complainant put the currency notes in the drawer of accused- Shadow witness reached after the money was put in drawer- Story was ignored.

In 2006 (3) RCR (Cri.) 796, Amrit Lal v. State of Punjab, two witnesses to recovery of tainted money not examined- Held that demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused not proved- Conviction set aside.

In the present case, before acceptance of tenders, rough cost estimate was prepared by Vimal Kumar. After the tender of Rattan Goyal was accepted, then there was part payment but no demand of illegal gratification. Regarding remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 91,000/-, payable to Rattan Goyal, bill was prepared by Anil Kumar on 10.2.1997. After final bill, entry was made in MB on 10.2.1997 and final bill along with MB was forwarded to AME on the same day. Independent witness was with the party but he was not examined.

Mahesh Chander, JE, was the witness of recovery but he did not support the story. When there was no reason to demand illegal gratification, then mere recovery of bribe money is not sufficient to convict the Appellants.

Gian Chand was the Municipal Counciller in MC, Mohali, at the relevant time. There was party faction in MC, Mohali. This fact was admitted by the complainant. As per complainant and IO, Draftsman was simply to prepare rough cost estimate of construction work. Anil Kumar was to prepare bill. Final payment was to be released by the Accounts Branch. So, when there was party faction amongst the Councillors, then possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out because Appellants were not toeing the line of the Vice President, who was inimical towards the President. Appellants being the employees were to obey the orders of the President. 5/6 times earlier to 13.3.1997, Gian Chand had met the Appellants and if there was demand of 12.5% as commission on behalf of different officers, then complainant should have contacted Vigilance Bureau. Before 13.3.1997, Gian Chand was not the attorney of Rattan Goyal. So, there was no idea to contact the Appellants. After getting power of attorney, Appellants were got implicated due to party faction.

In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on the file was not rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Impugned judgment suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

Both the appeals, i.e., Crl. Appeal No. 1310-SB of 2007 and Crl. Appeal No. 1361-SB of 2007 are allowed.