STATE OF HARYANA Vs. VINOD GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment dated 8.11.1996 passed by the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge) Karnal acquitting the accused respondent of the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on 27.3.1995, Kali Ram, complainant accompanied by Yad Ram had gone to the office of Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal and had complained to him that accused Vinod Goel, Junior Engineer, H.U.D.A., had demanded Rs. 500/- from him from renewing his Plumber's licence, whereupon the Superintendent of Police recorded the statement in the form of FIR Ex.PG, which was signed by Kali Ram. As per the allegations made by Kali Ram, he was a licensed Plumber of H.U.D.A., and had applied for renewal of his Plumber's licence in November 1995, to the Executive Engineer, Karnal and for a month his licence was not renewed and that Vinod Goel, Junior Engineer had demand Rs. 500/- from him for renewal of his Plumber's licence. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh Ahlawat, IPS, Superintendent of Police, obtained five currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from Kali Ram, complainant and after putting Phenolphthalein powder and putting his initials on the currency notes, he returned those notes to Kali Ram, complainant and joined Sh. R.K. Chauhan, District Revenue Officer in the raiding party. Thereafter the raiding party went to the house of the accused in Sector 13, Karnal and Kali Ram, complainant was directed to hand over the money to the accused and Yad Ram was directed to act as a shadow witness and to give a signal to the remaining members of the police party. After sometime when the signal was received from Yad Ram, the police party went inside the house of the accused and found the accused sitting in his drawing room and was asked to hand over the currency notes which were obtained by him from Kali Ram to the police party whereupon the accused took out the five notes from the left pocket of his shirt and after tallying the numbers of those currency notes, Sh. Mohinder Singh Ahlawat, prepared the recovery memo and thereafter the hands of the accused were washed with Sodium Carbonate solution and the same was taken into possession after making it into a sealed parcel. Statements of various witnesses were also recorded. After receipt of the report from F.S.L., challan was submitted in the court against the accused. The accused was charged under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, prosecution examined various witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the prosecution allegations against him and stated that he had not demanded any money from Kali Ram and that the so called raid was fake and that his hands and shirt were never got washed and no currency notes were recovered from his possession and he had been made a scape-goat by Sh. Mohinder Singh Ahlawat, the then Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal to show his karvai and that the witnesses had deposed falsely against him. In his defence, the accused examined Rajinder Kumar Mittal, Draftsman. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge) acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved against the same, State of Haryana has filed the present appeal against acquittal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State could not point out any material on the record to show that the findings arrived at by the learned Special Judge were contrary to the record. After going through the statements of various witnesses, I find that the same were discrepant on material aspects. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused had any opportunity to deal with the application for the renewal of the Plumber's licence and as such there was absolutely no occasion with the accused respondent to have demanded any money from the complainant and/or for the complainant to have agreed to pay any money to the accused respondent in this regard. In my opinion, the learned Special Judge had taken a possible view while acquitting the accused respondent of the charges framed against him, based on evidence led by the parties. I am further of the opinion, that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge is perfectly in consonance with the prosecution evidence and no fault could be found with the same.