KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Kuldeep Singh is in appeal against judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 28.11.2003 passed by Special Judge (Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Kurukshetra.

(2.) FIR No. 508 dated 15.11.1999 was registered under Section 7 and 13 of P.C. Act, 1988, in Police Station, City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Complainant Balwant Singh in his complaint (Exhibit PB), alleged that he is resident of village Dauda Kheri. Land of Lala Banarsi is in their possession and in respect of mutation and girdawari, Kuldeep Singh, Patwari demanded Rs. 10,000/ - as bribe. It has been alleged that Kuldeep Singh, Patwari does not do the work without money. Earlier also, complainant has paid an amount to Kuldeep Singh, Patwari for this work. He used to come out of Udasian Dera in Sehan for accepting the amount. Complainant along with Ram Singh went to DSP, Kurukshetra along with amount as he did not want to give the amount as bribe to the Patwari and action was sought against him.

(3.) SOLUTION of sodium carbonate was prepared in a jug. Two clean jugs were arranged. Currency notes were washed with the said solution in an empty jug. In an empty jug, the solution became pinkish. The said solution was poured in two separate clean and dry bottles. Thereafter, the said jug was cleaned and fresh solution of sodium carbonate and water was prepared in it. Hands of the accused were got washed with the said solution in an empty jug. The solution became pinkish. Similarly, the pant of the accused was also put to such wash from pockets by dipping in the solution. Right pocket of the pant and handkerchief turned pinkish. The solution was also poured in a separate jug and thereafter, the solution was poured in two separate clean and dry bottles. All these 6 nips were sealed with the seal of BS. The currency notes were put in a separate envelope and was accordingly sealed with the seal of BS. The envelope and 6 nips and parcel of pants and handkerchief were taken into police possession as Ex.PF. These were duly attested by the complainant -Balwant Singh, shadow witness -Ram Singh, recovery witness -Spattar Singh, recovery witness -Virender Kumar and Investigating Officer, DSP Bishan Singh. Thereafter, the case was registered vide FIR (Ex.PB/1). The aforesaid process adopted by the police in not getting the case first registered and then to raid the premises, may have legal consequences. According to learned counsel for the appellant, police is obligated in law to register a case on receipt of cognizable offence. Police cannot embark upon enquiry before registration of the case. In view of the judgment of case titled as "Lalita Kumari versus State of U.P. and Ors. : (2014) 2 SCC (1), only scope of enquiry before registration of case is to the extent of knowing whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. Therefore, procedure adopted by the police is claimed to be in violation of guidelines framed under the aforesaid Lalita Kumari (supra) case. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the appellant would be taken along with other submissions of the party at the relevant stage.