NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 04.03.2006 & 06.03.2006 respectively wherein the appellant Niranjan Singh has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act; for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 1 month.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(3.) Arguments had been addressed in detail by learned senior counsel Ms. Rebecca M. John assisted by Mr. Vishal Gosain, Advocate. It is pointed out that the version of the complainant is inherently improbable; his version that the demand was made on 07.05.1999 is demolished by his admission in his cross-examination that admittedly no person was present at the time when this demand was made from PW-9. It is pointed out that there is no explanation as to why the complainant remained silent and then finally made a complaint on 10.05.1999. The version of PW-9 qua the second demand is full of infirmities and attention has been drawn to the confrontation of the witnesses wherein certain parts of the statement made on oath does not find mention in his earlier complaint Ex.PW-9/A. It is pointed out that the testimony of the complainant is in the nature of an evidence of an accomplice and rule of caution demands that it must be corroborated. To support this submission, reliance has been placed upon Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 4 SCC 526. Reliance has also been placed upon Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 AIR(SC) 3377 as also another judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerala, 1996 11 SCC 720. It is pointed out that in these cases where the testimony of the complainant was not supported by other corroborative evidence, benefit of doubt had accrued in favour of the accused and he was entitled to an acquittal; it is pointed out that in this case also, the panch witness (PW-10) is hostile; he has not advanced the version of the prosecution; the testimony of PW-9 is also full of infirmities; in the absence of any independent corroboration, the trial Judge convicting the appellant has committed an illegality. Reliance has been placed upon C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, 2009 3 SCC 779 to support a submission that mere recovery of money is not sufficient to convict an accused for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act; presumption contained in Section 20 also cannot be drawn unless the prosecution has crossed the initial threshold which it has failed to do so in the instant case. It is pointed out that in this case, the version built up by the prosecution in two parts; as per the complaint, the initial demand of Rs.100/- was made on 07.05.1999 and the second amount of Rs.300/- was paid on 10.05.1999; where the first part of the incident i.e. of 07.05.1999 has been disbelieved, reliance on the second incident of 10.05.1999 which is only continuation of the first incident of 0-7.05.1999 is also an illegality and to support this submission reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Hari Dev Sharma Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1977 3 SCC 352. Attention has also been drawn to Ex.PW-1/A as also the version of PW-1 and PW-6 on this score; submission being that this document is per-se inadmissible as it was only a photocopy of the original and this document cannot be read in evidence. To support this submission, reliance has been placed upon Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @ Chhotu Singh and Another, 2009 6 SCC 681 as also another judgment of a single Bench of this Court in Sudir Engineering Company Vs. Nitco Raodways Ltd.,1995 34 DRJ. On all counts, the appellant is entitled to a benefit of doubt and a consequent acquittal.