STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Vs. DEVENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has come in appeal to question the correctness of a judgment dated 29.10.2010 of learned Special Judge (P.C. Act)-06, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by which the respondent Devender Singh was acquitted of the charges. The respondent has contested the appeal.

(2.) On 29.03.2001, Ram Kumar lodged a complaint in Anti Corruption Bureau alleging demand of Rs. 11,000/- as bribe by Mr.Panwar, AE, DDA to clear payment for execution of work order in the sum of Rs. 21,950/-. The complainant was able to arrange Rs. 6,000/- for payment. Insp.N.S.Minhas carried out pre-raid formalities and associated R.S.Chopra as panch witness. Allegations were that Rs. 6,000/- were paid as bribe to Devender Singh (the appellant) on the directions of Harpal Singh (since expired). Rs. 6,000/- were recovered from the possession of the appellant. Post-raid formalities were carried out. Both, Devender Singh and Harpal Singh were arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet under Sections 7/13 POC Act and 120 B IPC was submitted in the Court in which both Devender Singh and Harpal Singh were chargesheeted. During the pendency of the proceedings, Harpal Singh expired and proceedings against him were dropped as abated. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to prove the charges. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. After appreciation of evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the appellant as the prosecution was not able to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The moot question before the Trial Court was if complainant Ram Kumar was entitled to receive Rs. 21,950/- from DDA for execution of work order for the payment of which demand of Rs. 11,000/- was allegedly made as illegal gratification. The burden was heavily upon the prosecution to establish that it was the legal remuneration which the complainant Ram Kumar was entitled to receive and the respondent or his associate Harpal Singh was legally competent in their official capacity to sanction or clear the payment. In the complaint (Ex.PW-13/A) complainant did not give detailed information as to when the work order for boring a tube-well was awarded to him, when it was executed. PW-2 (R.K.Bhandari), who accorded sanction under Section 19, POC Act for Devender Singh's prosecution admitted in the crossexamination that he had not seen or examined if any work was entrusted to the complainant or it was executed by him. He revealed that some documents were on record to show that no work was entrusted or executed by the complainant. PW-6 (Mam Chand), SO, Horticulture from October, 1994 to 17.04.2000 stated that he had got bored one hand-pump in June, 2000 from one Ved Prakash and he was paid Rs. 600/- / 700/-. In the crossexamination, he denied having any acquaintance with the complainant Ram Kumar. He was not aware if any work was ever assigned to Ram Kumar by DDA. PW-3 (Naginder Parshad Singh) also corroborated his testimony and deposed that Ved Prakash, contractor, was given material to install the pump and the boring work was done by him. He also denied any acquaintance with Ram Kumar. PW-10 (Latoor Hasan), Deputy Director, Horticulture Division in DDA in 2001 proved work order (Ex.PW-10/A) provided to M/s. Ram Kumar on 04.01.2001. He however, deposed that no work was done regarding the said work order. On 05.02.2002, he, Ved Prakash, Ram Kumar and Investigating Officer visited the alleged spot where the work order was to be executed. However, Ram Kumar was unable to specify the area where the work was done by him. In the cross-examination, he was categorical to state that complainant Ram Kumar had not done any work and no bill was raised by him. The work for which payment was being claimed by the complainant had already been done by other contractor Ved Prakash. Apparently, there was no cogent and worthwhile evidence on record to establish if pursuant to work order (Ex.PW-10/A) dated 04.01.2001 any work was carried out by the complainant to claim payment of Rs. 21,950/-. In his statement as PW-14, Ram Kumar, admitted that he was working with one contractor Ved Prakash for boring of tube-wells in the year 2001. Relations between them became strained subsequently. In the crossexamination, the complainant revealed that tube-well was bored in the year 2000 with the assistance of Ved Prakash and he owed him a sum of Rs. 28,000/-. He further admitted that he did the boring jointly with Ved Prakash. Ved Prakash was not examined during investigation to ascertain execution of work order. The Raid Officer, Insp. N.S.Minhas, admitted in the cross-examination that the correctness of the complaint was not verified. He did not verify whether any payment was due to the complainant from DDA office. PW-11 (Insp. M.S.Sanga), Investigating Officer, admitted that he had made enquiries from the complainant for asking money for work which was not done by him. The complainant did not institute any civil proceedings for recovery of his dues. He did not lodge any complaint with the senior officers for non-payment of the legal remuneration. It is unclear as to when & whom he submitted the bills for payment. It is again not clear as to who was the concerned Officer to clear the bills. For release of a paltry amount Rs. 21,950/- a huge demand of Rs. 11,000/- as illegal gratification cannot be expected to be made or paid. In the complaint (Ex.PW-13/A), the complainant did not specifically name Devender Singh or Harpal Singh to have demanded illegal gratification from him. In his Court statement, he attributed demand of bribe to both Devender and Harpal Singh and for that he was duly confronted with the statement made to the police. No doubt, a public officer has no right to demand any bribe; but when he is hauled up to answer a charge of having taken illegal gratification, the question whether any motive, for payment or acceptance of bribe at all existed is certainly relevant and a material fact for consideration. It is an important factor bearing on the question as to whether the accused had received the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official functions. In the instant case, DDA was not legally liable to pay Rs. 21,950/- to the complainant Ram Kumar as he could not prove execution of any work pursuant to the work order awarded to him. The appellant Devender Singh and his associate Harpal Singh were not capable to sanction any such unauthorised payment.