STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAM KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the order dated 16.7.1997 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1993 whereby the respondent -Ram Krishan has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated was that during the year 1992 the respondent was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle, Bhakra, Sub Tehsil Naina Devi, District Bilaspur. One Balak Ram resident of Khalriba Panchayat Bhakra made a complaint (Ext. PW -8/A) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti Corruption Zone, Bilaspur on 7.7.1992 alleging inter alia that respondent declined to supply him the copies of revenue record without payment of Rs. 300 as illegal gratification. On the basis of the said statement, First Information Report (Ext. PD) was recorded by Smt. Asha Thakur LHC (PW -4) at Police Station Anti Corruption, Zone Bilaspur on the same day at 8.30 p.m. for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short the PC. Act). The investigation of the case was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Mohan Lai (PW -11) Anti Corruption Zone, Hamirpur who had formed the raiding party consisting of complainant Balak Ram (PW -8), Bachnu Ram (PW -9), Sher Singh (PW -10), PW -11 had given Rs. 150 of denomination of Rs. 50 each to PW -8 for handing over the same to the respondent. Necessary demonstration had also been given to the trap witnesses and as per the direction of PW -11, PW -8 had handed over the amount of Rs. 150 which was allegedly accepted by respondent as bribe to supply the copies of the revenue record to the complainant. The amount of illegal gratification was kept by the respondent in a drawer of his table. On receiving the signal, the police immediately entered into the office room of the respondent and effected the recovery of Rs. 150 from drawer of his table. His hands were got washed in a plate and thereafter the water was taken in a nip which was sealed with mark H and the seal after use was handed over to PW -10. The samples of powder were marked Exts. P -l and P -2 and the nip containing solution was Ext. P -4. The memo of hand wash of the respondent was prepared and marked Ext. PW -8/D. The numbers of the recovered notes were compared and tallied with the numbers noted in Memo (Ext. PW -8/B). PW -11 prepared site plan (Ext. PW -11/A) of the spot. The case property was deposited by Asha Thakur, LHC (PW -4) with LHC Babu Ram (PW -5). The samples were sent to Chemical Analyser of Chemical Examination, Laboratory, Shimla. PW -11 recorded the statements of the witnesses and completed the investigation. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Analyser (Ext. PW -11/C), the Police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented by PW -11 in the Court of the Special Judge for the commission of the above said offences against the respondent.

(3.) On consideration of the Police report, the learned Special Judge found prima facie case against the respondent and charged him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC. Act. The respondent denied the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also placed on record documentary evidence. The respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that Assistant Sub Inspector Hari Ram had involved him in a false case in connivance with his brother and relative. His defence was that Sher Singh PW -10 is the real brother and Bachnu (PW -9) is the real Bhanja (Sisters son) of ASI Hari Ram. He pleaded that PW -8 complainant, PW -9 and PW -10 and ASI Hari Ram had encroached upon the Government land and he initiated proceedings against them for their eviction after making inquiry with regard to their illegal possession over the Government land. He pleaded innocence. However, the respondent led no evidence in his defence.