Criminal Appeal S No. 702-SB of 2003 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal S No. 702-SB of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:January 15,2013 Dalel Singh Appellant Versus State of Haryana Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda,Advocate for the appellant Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Sabina, J.
Appellant had faced the trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') in FIR No.608, dated 29.9.1997 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 29.3.2003 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant- Ranbir Singh had approached the appellant with regard to change of mutation of the land purchased by him from Ram Rattan. Appellant, however, raised a demand of ` 500/- for doing the needful. Complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner Rohtak in this regard. The said complaint was marked to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak. Thereafter, Ashok Vashisth, Sub Divisiional Magistrate alongwith the complainant and Ishwar Singh met the Deputy Superintendent of Police-Jai Parkash. The complainant handed over five currency notes in the denomination of ` 100/- each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police returned the same to the complainant after application of phenolphthalein powder (here-in-after referred to as `P-Powder'). Complainant was instructed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. Ishwar Singh was instructed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to give a signal to the raiding party after acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant on demand. Thereafter, raiding party reached the Office of the appellant. Complainant and shadow witness went inside the office of the appellant,whereas, the remaining raiding party stayed behind. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, remaining raiding party entered the office of the appellant. The hands of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the solution turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right shirt pocket of the appellant. The currency notes were also washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and the colour of the solution turned pink. Right shirt pocket of the appellant was also dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate and the colour of the solution turned pink.
Prosecution, in order to prove its case,led its evidence. The complainant appeared in the witness box as PW3 and deposed as per the prosecution case.
PW4 Ishwar Singh Shadow witness duly corroborated the statement of the complainant with regard to demand and acceptance and recovery of bribe money.
PW6 Ashish Vashisth also corroborated the statements of the complainant and shadow witness with regard to recovery of bribe money from the appellant. Since the Deputy Superintendent of Police-Jai Parkash had died during trial, the proceedings conducted by him were proved by PW7 Assistant Sub Inspector- Ram Mehar Singh.
Appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, had stated as under:-
"That I am an Ex-serviceman and after my retirement from Indian Army, I joined Haryana State MITC in the year 1989. I was shifted to Revenue department on the post of Patwari. I retired from Indian Army after 12 years of service with exemplary service record, and my service record in HSMITC/revenue department also was clean and there was no complaint against me of any sort. Now I am retired from the service in the year 2002.
That Om Parkash Sarpanch of village Rurki had once misbehaved with me and Sh. Ramphal Hooda Naib Tehsildar. I moved an application against the Sarpanch to Shri Ashok Vashishth SDM, Rohtak and he sent the same to Deputy Commissioner along his recommendations and the Sarpanch was suspended.
That Ranbir Singh complainant of the case had asked me to purchase a watch for his relative from Rohtak,as I used to come to Rohtak I purchased the watch for Rs.1000/- and handed over the same to Ranbir Singh and he paid me Rs.500/- at that time and said that he would pay me the amount of Rs.500/- after receiving the same from his relative. That Ranbir Singh had taken Rs.1000/- from his relative but did not pay me the balance amount on one pretext or the other. We have altercation and quarrel over that many times. That once I have gone to village Rurki and demanded the aforesaid amount publicity from Ranbir Singh, he felt insulted and humiliated but assured me that he would come my office at Rohtak and would pay the balance amount there.
That Ranbir Singh complainant of the case in order to avoid the payment of my money and on the instigation of Om Parkash Sarpanch fabricated this false story and got me implicated in this totally false case.
That one Head Constable brought me from Patwarkhana to the office of DSP and all the documents were prepared in the office of DSP. I am innocent."
Appellant examined DW1 Subhash Chander and DW2 Nafe Singh in his defence evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been falsely involved in this case at the instance of Sarpanch-Om Parkash. In fact, the said Sarpanch was inimical towards the appellant as the said Sarpanch was suspended on a complaint made by the appellant. Further the complainant had to pay `1000/- to the appellant on account of purchase of a watch from him. Complainant had paid only `500/- to the appellant but had refused to pay the balance amount on one pretext or the other. When the said balance amount was demanded by the appellant, the complainant had falsely involved him in this case.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. All the material witnesses examined by the prosecution during trial had fully proved the prosecution case.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
In the present case, complainant-Ranbir Singh,while appearing in the witness box, had duly proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe money from the appellant. Complainant deposed that on 29.9.1997, he had gone to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner along with Ishwar Singh and had told him about the demand of bribe raised by the appellant from him for the purposes of mutation proceedings. Thereafter, he went to the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with the Sub Divisional Magistrate. He handed over five currency notes in the denomination of `100/- each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who returned to him after application of a P-Powder. He was directed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. The numbers of currency notes were duly noted down in the memo Exhibit PE. Ishwar Singh was appointed as a shadow witness. Thereafter, he went to the Office of the accused and handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant. On receipt of signal from Ishwar Singh, the remaining raiding party reached the spot. The currency notes handed over by him to the appellant were recovered from his right shirt pocket. When the hands of the appellant were dipped in a solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. When the shirt pocket of the appellant were dipped in a solution, the colour of the solution turned pink.
PW4 Ishwar Singh has duly corroborated the statement of PW3 Ranbir Singh on all material aspects. He has further deposed that when the complainant met the appellant, he demanded money from him and,thereafter, the complainant had given the tainted currency notes to the appellant.
PW6 Ashosk Vashisth is an independent witness. He has also corroborated the statement of the complainant on material aspects. The said witness has deposed that he had approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with the complainant and a raid was organized. He was a member of the raiding party. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, he had entered the Office of the appellant along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police. When he entered the office of the appellant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had caught hold of the appellant from his right hand. The appellant was holding the currency notes in his hand. He corroborated the statement of the complainant with regard to hand wash and pocket wash of the appellant.
DW1 Subhash Chander deposed that on 25.2.1997, Om Parkash was Sarpanch of village Rurki. He had misbehaved with Ram Phal Hooda Naib Tehsildar and Dalel Singh Patwari. An inquiry was conducted in this regard. On 11.11.1997,Om Parkash was suspended . In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had no personal knowledge about the complaint made against Om Parkash,Sarpanch.
DW2 Nafe Singh deposed that he knew the appellant. Appellant was ex-service man. In the year 1997, Om Parkash was the Sarpanch of the Village. In February 1997, a dispute had arisen between the appellant and Sarpanch Om Parkash. On an inqury held in this regard Om Parkash, Sarpanch was suspended. Om Parkash, Sarpanch had threatened the appellant that he would teach him a lesson. Ranbir Singh and Ishwar Singh belonged to the party of the Sarpanch. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Ranbir Singh son of Daya Ram was not a relative of Om Parkash. He further deposed that Sarpanch after his suspension had left their village. He had not moved any application to any higher official with regard to false involvement of the appellant in this case.
Thus, in the present case, the complainant Ranbir Singh, shadow witness and PW6 Ashok Vashisth had duly proved the prosecution case. So far as the plea of the appellant is concerned to the effect that he had been falsely involved in this case at the instance of Om Parkash Sarpanch, the same is devoid of any force.
DW2 Nafe Singh, in his cross-examination, deposed that the complainant was not related to Om Parkash, Sarpanch. Similarly, the fact that the complainant had falsely involved the appellant in this case at the instance of Om Parkash was not put to PW3 Ranbir Singh in his cross-examination. Thus, it cannot be presumed that PW3 Ranbir Singh was known to Om Parkash Sarpanch or that the complainant had falsely involved the appellant at his (Om Parkash) instance.
PW3 had initiated the present case as the appellant had raised a demand of `500/- from him for entering the mutation in his name with regard to the land purchased by him. Appellant has further taken the plea that, in fact, the complainant had purchased a watch from him for `1000/- and had failed to pay him `500/- out of the said amount. Due to this reason complainant had falsely involved him in this case. This plea of the appellant also appears to be an after thought and is without any basis. There was no occasion for the appellant to have sold a watch to the complainant. The said fact was duly denied by the complainant in his cross-examination and is, thus, devoid of any merit.
So fas as the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant from the complainant is concerned, the same is duly established from the statements of PW3 complainant and PW4 shadow witness. The recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant in a raid organised by the Vigilance Deparment is duly established from the statements of the complainant, PW4 and PW6.
PW6 Ashok Vashisth is an independent witness and had no reason to falsely involved the appellant in this case. Although PW6 has deposed that Om Parkash Sarpanch had threatened the appellant to falsely involve him in a case but the said fact fails to advance the case of the appellant as there is nothing on record to substantiate that the complainant was having any nexus with Om Parkash Sarpanch and due to this reason, he had falsely involved the appellant in this case. The hand wash and shirt pocket wash of the appellant in a solution of sodium carbonate had turned the colour of the said solution pink which also leads to inference that the appellant has dealt with tainted currency notes.
In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 15, 2013 arya