KUSHAL SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.7.2012 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Corruption Case No. 04 of 2011, whereby the appellant/accused, (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for the sake of convenience), has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of convenience) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution, in a nut -shell, is that on 24.5.2010, PW1 Sanjay Kumar along with PW2 Surjit Kumar visited the Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and made a written complaint, Ext. PW1/A to PW9 Dy. Superintendent of Police Ajay Rana stating therein that he was permanent resident of Village Keharwin, P.O. Baloh, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P.. He was contractor in PWD and Electricity Board. He was assigned the work of retaining wall of Tower No. 87 of 132 K.V. D.C. Line from Chulah to Hamirpur pertaining to electricity board for Rs. 5,00,000/ - in the month of January 2010. He completed the work in the month of March 2010. He got verified the bill from the office of Executive Engineer, Electricity Board, Mattan Sidh, who after deduction/recovery passed the bill for Rs. 2,96,000/ -. He submitted the bill before the Accounts Officer in the office of Chief Engineer, Anu, for payment on 22.5.2010. The accused was employed as Accounts Officer. The accused asked the complainant to pay 1% commission of the total bill amount, which came to Rs. 3000/ -. The accused also told him to come to the office on 24.5.2010 along with money, otherwise he would stop the payment. PW9 Dy. Superintendent of Police Ajay Kumar Rana on the basis of the complaint, Ext. PW 9/A, registered the FIR, Ext. PW9/A against the accused. He sent a letter through HC Sunil Kumar to SDM Hamirpur for deputing one official/officer to be associated in the vigilance raiding party and the case was entrusted to PW14 Inspector Khushi Ram for investigation. The demonstration about mixture of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powders was displayed by Inspector Khushi Ram to Sanjay Kumar, Surjit Kumar and SI Amar Singh in the Police Station and memo, Ext. PW1/B was prepared to this effect. At the askance of Inspector Khushi Ram, PW1 Sanjay Kumar gave him six currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/ - each amounting to Rs. 3,000/ -. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and its numbers were noted down on a memo Ext. PW1/C. Inspector Khushi Ram again handed over treated currency notes to PW1 Sanjay Kumar with a direction to hand over the same to the accused on demand. PW2 Surjit Kumar was told by the police to give signal to the police as and when the bribe money was given to the accused. HC Sunil Kumar and Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal were associated in the raiding party. Inspector Khushi Ram, SI Amar Singh, HC Prem Chand, Constable Rakesh Kumar and Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal went in official gypsy No.HP -03 -3025 driven by Constable Surender Kumar near the office of Accounts Officer, Transmission wing, HPSEB, Hamirpur, where complainant Sanjay Kumar and Surjit Kumar also met them. As per direction of Inspector Khushi Ram, complainant Sanjay Kumar went inside the office of the accused and shadow witness Surjit Kumar stood outside his office. Inspector Khushi Ram along with other police officials and witness Roshan Lal kept hiding themselves near the office of Accounts Officer, Transmission Wing, HPSEB, Hamirpur, by the side of the road. On receiving signal from PW2 Surjit Kumar, HC Sunil Kumar and Constable Rakesh Kumar went inside the office room of the accused and caught him from the wrists. Inspector Khushi Ram, Naib Tehsildar Roshan Lal and HC Prem Lal also came in the office. Inspector Khushi Ram disclosed his identity and got washed hands of the accused in a plate and colour of the same remained natural water colour. However, a separate mixture of sodium carbonate was prepared and on mixing both the mixtures its colour changed to light pink and the said pink colour mixture was put in a nip, Ext. P1 and sealed with seal 'H' and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW2/A in the presence of witnesses. The accused produced six currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/ - each from left pocket of his shirt. The currency notes were handed over to Roshan Lal, Naib Tehsildar, who tallied numbers with the numbers already noted down in the memo, Ext. PW1/C. The currency notes, Ext. P3 to Ext. P8 were sealed with seal impression 'H' in an envelope, Ext. P2 and was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW2/B. Pocket of shirt of the accused was also washed with plain water and its colour remained same. Mixture of sodium carbonate was prepared in a separate glass and on mixing both mixtures, its colour changed to pink and it was collected in a nip, Ext. P9 and was sealed with seal impression 'H' vide memo Ext. PW2/C in the presence of witnesses. Shirt, Ext. P11 was also sealed with seal impression 'H' and was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW2/C. The seal impressions of seal 'H' were taken on a piece of cloth, Ext. PW11/A. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, Ext. PW14/A. The accused was arrested. The case property was deposited with the MHC, Police Station, SV & ACB, Hamirpur. It was sent to RFSL, Gutkar (Mandi) from where the report, Ext. PW9/A was received. The documents pertaining to the case were collected. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, prosecution sanction against the accused was obtained vide office order, Ext. PW10/A. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all codal formalities.

(2.) THE prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to him, there were always deficiencies in the bills of the complainant and he insisted him to remove the deficiencies to which he did not agree and due to this, the complainant falsely implicated him in the case. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment dated 23.7.2012, as stated hereinabove.

(3.) MR . Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2012.