SUNKA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge in Corruption Case No.1 of 2008, decided on 13.7.2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short "the Act", whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of '.1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 and for a period of one year and to pay a fine of '.2500/- under Section 13 (2) read with 13(i)(d) of the Act with the default Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? clause. Both the sentences aforesaid were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case can be stated thus. The appellant, hereinafter referred to "the accused", was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Namhol, District Bilaspur. PW1 Ram Lok was running a shop in Namhol Bazaar. At that time, he was also 'District President of Youth Federation of India'. He had taken cash and credit limit from the State Bank of India, Namhol branch. To enhance such limit, he needed copy of the Jamabandi of his land, for which the accused was putting him of on one pretext or the other. (ii) It is alleged that on 30th April, 2007, Ram Lok aforesaid went to the accused to get the revenue record of his land, but in turn, he demanded an amount of '.1500/- to supply the same, but the complainant did not want to pay him bribe. The accused was dilly- dallying and told the complainant to come with the bribe amount on 3.5.2007 at 4.00 p.m. in his office. Since the complainant did not like his attitude, as such, he decided to lodge a complaint with Vigilance Department at Bilaspur. On his way with PW2 Des Raj, they met PW11 Vigilance Inspector Anant Ram and PW12 Constable Pawan Kumar at Brahmpukher to whom he narrated the entire story. (iii) PW11 Inspector Anant Ram recorded the statement of the complainant Ext.PW1/A under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finding a prima-facie case under the aforesaid sections, he made an endorsement on this statement and sent PW12 Constable Pawan Kumar to the Police Station of State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur for the registration of the case and also informed Inspector Amar Nath on his Mobile Phone and requested him to come with the trap material to Brahmpukher. (iv) Inspector Amar Nath alongwith SI Laxman Dass and Constables Vinod Kumar and Dharam Singh reached there in the Government vehicle and met PW11 Inspector Anant Ram. (v) At Brahmpukher, PW11 Inspector Anant Ram prepared solution of sodium carbonate and Phenolphthalein powder in two separate glasses. Both the solutions remained colourless, but when both solutions were mixed up, it turned pink. This demonstration was given to the complainant and PW2 Des Raj. Thereafter Inspector aforesaid explained the procedure for laying the trap to both of them. The aforesaid mixture was put in to a nip and sealed with seal "K". He also took samples of both these powders in separate pieces of paper and sealed separately in two envelopes with the same seal at three places. Thereafter seal was handed over to PW2 Des Raj. With respect to the entire procedure, memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared in their presence. (vi) Thereafter, PW1 Ram Lok complainant produced the currency notes of Rs.1500/- out of which, one note was of Rs.500/- denomination and others of Rs.100/- each. The numbers of the currency notes were noted down on a piece of paper, thereafter currency notes were treated in Phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant with the direction not to touch the currency notes and not to shake hands with accused, but to hand over these currency notes to the accused on demand. (vii) Shadow witness PW2 Des Raj was to watch the handing over and taking over the money and give signal to the trap party. The above procedure was explained to the said witness and memo to this effect Ext.PW1/C was prepared, which was signed by Ram Lok complainant and Des Raj aforesaid. (viii) PW1 Ram Lok and PW2 Des Raj both of them left to Patwarkhana on their own motorcycle, followed by the trap party in the official vehicle. The trap party took position near the Patwarkhana behind the bushes, whereas the complainant alongwith Des Raj went to the Patwarkhana. They found accused present there and on demand he is alleged to have handed over the treated currency notes of Rs.1500/- to him. PW2 Des Raj gave signal to the Vigilance party. They rushed to the spot, caught hold the accused from both the wrists and took his hand wash in a plate which remained colourless. Thereafter the solution of the sodium carbonate was prepared, it also remained colourless, but when it was added with the hand wash of the accused, it turned pink. Thereafter, the hand wash was put into a nip and sealed with seal "K" which was taken from PW2 Des Raj and to this effect, a memo Ext.PW1/D, which was signed by the accused, Ram Lok as well as Des Raj was prepared. Thereafter the accused produced the currency notes from his table which tallied with the numbers noted on a piece of paper earlier. The currency notes recovered were put in a sealed envelope and taken in to possession vide memo Ext.PW1/E. (ix) The accused was arrested and memo Ext.PW11/A to this effect was prepared. (x) PW11 Inspector Anant Ram thereafter locked Patwarkhana, the keys whereof were handed over to the Naib-Tehsildar Namhol on the next day. (xi) On 4.5.2007, PW1 Ram Lok produced the photocopies Exts.PW1/G of certificate and PW1/H Jamabandi taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/F, which were supplied by the accused. (xii) PW11 Inspector Anant Ram deposited the demonstration nip, hand wash and three envelopes containing samples of Phenolphthalein powder, sodium carbonate and currency notes with PW6 MHC Purshotam Dass on the same day, in the Malkhana. (xiii) Thereafter during the investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained the appointment and posting orders of the accused. On 27.10.2007, Inspector Anant Ram took into possession 'Roznamcha Wakayati' Ext.PW5/A and receipt book Ext.PW5/B vide memo Ext.PW5/C from Piar Singh Patwari regarding the supply of copies of certificate and Jamabandi Ext.PW1/G and H respectively. (xiv) PW6 MHC Purshotam Dass entered the above articles in the register of Malkhana. On 11.5.2007 vide RC No.1/2007, handed over the hand-wash nip, the demonstration nip and envelopes of the sample of both the envelopes of the powders aforesaid in the same condition alongwith sample of seal used and docket through PW4 C. Krishan Lal vide aforesaid R.C., which were deposited by him in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on the same day and after obtaining its receipt on the R.C., it was handed over back to MHC aforesaid.

(3.) SHRI H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which rendered the entire prosecution case doubtful. He further argued that the case of the prosecution at the very outset looks fishy against the accused, as the documents sought to be obtained from the accused were already supplied to him and were also handed over to the Bank for the purpose it was needed. He further referred to the nip Ext.DX, envelope of Phenolphthalein powder Ext.DY which was prepared about two months prior to the date of the present FIR depicting bearing the same FIR number. These articles were produced during trial as case property alongwith others before the learned Special Judge, he also noted its description under his signatures and handed it over to the police. He further referred to the statement of PW 6 MHC Purshotam Dass and PW4 C. Krishan Lal with respect to the origin of the aforesaid exhibits. They could not identify in whose handwriting these were prepared. With reference to this, learned counsel for the accused tried to ventilate that the complainant was an influential person and he in connivance with the Vigilance Department had tried to trap the accused in a false case even two months prior to the alleged incident. It is also argued that PW1 complainant Ram Lok initially did not support the case of the prosecution, as such he was declared hostile, but when cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he toed his line. The learned counsel for the accused also pin-pointed that PW Chaman Lal and DW2 Ram Lal both were present in the Patwarkhana on the day of alleged incident. Though Chaman Lal was examined as PW10, but he did not support the prosecution case and Ram Lal was not examined to support the case of the prosecution, but was examined as a defence witness who had probablised the defence. The learned trial Court is alleged to have ignored the above discrepancies as such prayed for allowing the appeal.