Criminal Misc. No.395-MA of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.395-MA of 2007 Date of decision : 8.9.2008 State of Punjab ....Petitioner Versus Ram Chander ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioner-State. Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent/accused was exonerated in case FIR No. 30 dated 9.8.2004 under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act'), Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bhatinda. The prosecution allegation was that the respondent/accused was caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification from the first informant Daljit Singh. Besides the police officials, the raiding party consisted of complainant Daljit Singh and shadow witness Harjinder Singh. The learned Special Judge noticed that complainant and shadow witness 'ditch' the prosecution plea . In that very context, learned Special Judge noticed that “complainant further deposed that accused Ram Chander did not demand any illegal gratification from him. Since the complainant did not support the prosecution version so he was got declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor.” In the context of PW-6 Harjinder Singh, shadow witness, learned Special Judge noticed as under:- Criminal Misc. No.395-MA of 2007 -2- **** “PW-6 Harjinder Singh is the shadow witness and he has stated that on 8.8.2004 Daljit Singh told him to be a witness in the case and he accompanied the complainant to the Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda. He further deposed that he remained outside the office of Vigilance Bureau whereas Daljit Singh complainant went inside on 9.8.2004 and nothing happened in his presence in the office of Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda. This witness also did not support the prosecution version and as such he was also got declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor.” It was on the above factual premise that the learned Special Judge noticed that mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the pocket of accused was not sufficient to convict him on a charge under section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act. For the very reasons noticed by the learned Special Judge, it is apparent that the learned Special Judge could not have validly recorded a finding of indictment, particularly in the light of the statement made by DW-1 Ramesh Kumar that penalty of Rs.2505/- had already been imposed upon Daljit Singh son of Gurmail Singh-first informant on a report filed by the respondent/accused. It is apparent therefrom that the prosecution presentation about the respondent/accused having demanded and accepted illegal gratification from Daljit Singh did not inspire confidence. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Special Judge, and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch Criminal Misc. No.395-MA of 2007 -3- **** stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. I In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and I so order accordingly. September 08, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE