BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Special Judge, Solan has convicted appellant Bahadur Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, under Sec. 7 and 13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000.00 under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act. While holding the accused guilty of demanding illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 20,000.00 on account of supplying the copies of revenue record, when he was posted as Patwari, Patwar circle, Jheera, Tehsil Nalgarah, District Solan and supply of such record on 29.7.2008 after acceptance of amount aforesaid being not his legal remuneration and rather illegal gratification from the complainant Ved Prakash (PW-1), which otherwise was part of his official duties and for that he should have not received any such amount, he, therefore, has been found to have misused his official position by obtaining Rs. 20,000.00 as illegal gratification other than his legal remuneration.

(2.) Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate has strenuously contended that the present is a case where there is no iota of evidence suggesting the involvement of the accused for the commission of the offence. No independent witness has been associated by the I.O. during the investigation of the case. Complainant Ved Praksah (PW-1) and Ram Rakha (PW-9), according to Mr. Verma, being partisan and interested witnesses should have not been relied upon as they were interested in the success of the prosecution case. In this context, it is emphasised that as per own admission of PW-1 and PW-9, they both are business partners and as such deposed falsely to implicate the accused in this case. It has further been pointed out that the recovery of the copies of revenue record from the accused has been given undue weightage while convicting the accused, however, erroneously as according to learned counsel, had a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 been received by the accused as illegal gratification, why such record was not handed over to the complainant on the receipt of the amount in question. Further that cogent and reliable evidence has not been brought on record to satisfactorily prove the manner in which the alleged trap was laid and to the contrary findings of conviction have been based upon hypothesis and conjectures. The evidence produced by the accused in his defence is stated to be not appreciated in its right perspective.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General while supporting the impugned judgment has forcefully contended that the demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance by the accused stands satisfactorily established on record. The complainant and the shadow witness, no doubt, were well known to each other, however, not in relation with each other in any manner whatsoever. The prosecution case right from the very beginning till the recovery of Rs. 20,000.00 from the accused is stated to be well established from the evidence available on record.