HAZARI LAL Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Hazari Lal was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, of offences under Section 5 (2) read with Sec. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. On the first count he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. On the second count he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. The conviction and sentences were confirmed by the High Court of Delhi.

(2.) The case which the prosecution set out to prove before trial Judge was briefly as follows: The scooter-rickshaw belonging to Sri Ram (P. W. 3) and driven by his driver Ram Lubhaya (P.W. 6) was involved in an accident on July 12, 1969. The scooter-rickshaw and a tonga which were involved in the accident were taken to the Police station, Kashmere Gate by the accused, a police constable attached to that station. P. W. 3 obtained orders from the Magistrate for the release of his vehicle and went to the Police Station to obtain delivery of the vehicle. The accused, who was present took him outside and told him that the vehicle would be given to him only if he paid a bribe of Rs.60/-. P. W. 3 then went away. he went to the Anti Corruption Department and made statement to Inspector Paras Nath, P. W. 8. After recording the statement of P. W. 3, P. W. 8 sent for two persons Davindar Kumar (P.W.4) and Kewal Krishan. The statement of P. W. 3 was read out to P. W. 3 in the presence of the two Panch witnesses Davinder Kumar and Kewal Krishan. Davinder Kumar and Kewal Krishan. P. W. 3. then produced six currency notes of the value of Rs.10/- each. The numbers of the notes were noted and they were treated with phenolphthalein powder. After the usual instructions were given to the P. W. 3 and the panch witnesses the raiding party proceeded towards Kashmere Gate. P. W. 3, and P. W. 6 and Kewal Krishan went into the Police Station, while P. W. 8 and others stayed outside. The money was handed over to the accused who took it and put it inside the right hand pocket of his trousers. P. W. 6 Kewal Krishan then came out and signalled to P. W. 8 whereupon P. W. 8 and the Panch witnesses went inside the Police Station. The accused was present inside. As soon as he saw the party led by P. W. 8 he took out the currency notes from the right side pocket of his trousers and threw them across the wall into the adjoining room. P. W. 8 instructed some of the police officers accompanying him to rush to the adjoining room and to keep a watch over the notes which must have fallen there. He then introduced himself to the accused and took him to the adjoining room. Some of the notes were lying on the table of the Duty Officer in that room while others had fallen on the ground near the chair of the Duty Officer. The six notes were collected in the presence of the witnesses and their numbers were compared with the numbers noted before they proceeded on the raid. The numbers tallied. The accused was questioned by the Inspector and he denied that he had demanded any bribe and kept silent about the acceptance of the bribe. Both the hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution and the solution which was previously colourless turned pink. The same test was repeated with the handkerchief which was taken out of the right hand side pocket of the accused and also with the trousers of the accused. Each test resulted in the bicarbonate solution turning pink. After completion a of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the accused being for offences under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) All that has been mentioned in the previous paragraph was what the prosecution set out to prove before the Trial Court. But many of the witnesses turned volte face. P. W. 3 stated in his evidence that on the first occasion when he went to the Police Station to obtain delivery of his scooter-rickshaw it was not the accused that was present but one Hawaldar. It was the Hawaldar and not the accused that demanded the bribe of Rs.60/- from him. According to him at the time of the raid, when he, P. W. 6 and Kewal Krishan went inside the Police Station they found the accused there and asked him to take the sum of Rs.60/- and return the scooter rickshaw. P. W. 3 stretched his hand with the money towards the pocket of the accused's trousers but the accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant. He refused to receive the money and jerked P. W. 3's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into the neighbouring room. He told the Inspector that the notes had been flung across the wall and that the accused had neither demanded the amount from him nor accepted the money from him. On the other hand the accused had refused to take the money from him. The Inspector recovered the notes from the neighbouring room, placed them on the table and thereafter subjected the handkerchief and the pocket of the accused's trousers to the phenolphthalein test. The implication of this part of the evidence was that it was as a result of the handling of these articles by the Inspector that they came to have phenolphthalein powder and that was the reason why the solution turned pink. P. W. 3 was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution with reference to the earlier statements made by him. P. W. 6 followed suit and he too was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution with reference to his earlier statements.