KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.9.2011 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Solan, H.P., in Corruption Case No. 3-S/7 of 2009, 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 rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 28.11.2008, a telephonic message was received from PW1 Khem Ram, resident of Majhol, Post Office Nayagram, Tehsil Kasauli, Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, that the accused was demanding bribe money from him for entering mutation. Thereafter, a police party headed by PW15 Inspector Anil Dhaulta went to the spot at Village Kuradi and recorded statement of Khem Ram (PW1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. According to the averments contained in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on 22.11.2008 he went to Patwar Circle, Tadol and came to know that the land comprised in Khasra No.91/1 measuring 15 Biswas fell under that Patwar Circle. The accused, who was working as Patwari, told him why mutation of the estate was not sought to be incorporated and a lot of time had elapsed. Accused demanded a sum of Rs.4000/- for entering mutation. However, the complainant showed his inability to pay amount. The complainant handed over death certificate of his father to the accused. He did not visit Patwar Circle, Tadol on 25.11.2008 as he could not arrange for money. On 26.11.2008, the complainant made a telephonic call to the accused, who told him to come on 28.11.2008 with Rs.4000/- to get the work done. On the basis of Ruqua, an FIR was registered against the accused. The vigilance personnel gave pre-trap demonstration to the complainant. The vigilance personnel during demonstration before trap noted down the numbers of the currency notes, four in number, each to the denomination of Rs.1000/- produced by the complainant. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The currency notes were handed over to the complainant with direction to keep the same in his pocket and thereafter hand over the currency notes to Patwari on his demand. The shadow witness was directed to give signal after handing over the currency notes. The complainant along with shadow witness went to the accused and after receiving a signal, the vigilance personnel also went to the accused. The accused was overpowered and his hands were got washed. However, colour of hand-wash did not change. It remained neutral. Solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a separate glass. When it was added to solution of hand-wash, its colour turned pink. It was put into a small bottle and was taken into possession vide seizure memo. The accused also produced currency notes of Rs.4000/- from the pocket of his pants. The currency notes were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes already noted down. Pocket of the pants of the accused was also got washed the manner in which his hands were got washed. The accused also produced one mutation register, in which mutation to the estate of Khem Ram and others was found to be incorporated on 24.11.2008. The samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report Ext.PA, traces of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate were detected. The prosecution sanction against the accused was also obtained. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. According to him, he had reprimanded the complainant and he was falsely implicated in the case. According to him, neither he demanded any bribe money nor he accepted the same. The accused also produced two witnesses in his defence. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment dated 27.9.2011, as stated hereinabove.