IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 179 of 2002. Decided on: April 10, 2009. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Ajit Singh @ Jeet Ram. …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed in Corruption case No.8 of 1999, by the learned trial court, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short “the Act”. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent was posted as Kanungo in the office of Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) Mehatpur at Dehlan Patwar circle vide order Ex.PH. The complainant Subhash Chand was the owner of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1005/1006 which was earlier bearing Khasra No. 9447 in village Dehlan. The said land was entered in the name of Smt. Shibbo and her three sons and three daughters by the Revenue officials whereas Khasra No. 1005 was kept as “Abadi Deh”. PW-1, Subhash Chand requested the respondent for correcting the said entries. The Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. respondent asked PW1 to bring the sale-deed and meet him after a week. After a couple of days later Subhash Chand came to the office of the respondent, Patwari Narinder Singh was also present there. The accused/ respondent retained a leaf of the sale deed on the pretext that it was required by him for effecting necessary entries. The applicant had also moved an application before the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) Una, for seeking correction of revenue entries, which was sent to the respondent. The complainant again approached the respondent but he demanded some money for Sewa Pani. The complainant gave Rs. 50/- to the respondent. On 26th October, 1995 again, the complainant visited in the office of Kanungo. It is alleged that the respondent again demanded Rs. 200/- for Sewa Pani, at that time Narinder Singh aforesaid was also present. On 26.10.1995, the complainant along with Surjit Singh, (PW-2) and Gurnam Singh went to the office of respondent. Sh. Narinder Singh Patwari was also present there. The respondent again demanded some money for Sewa Pani, but the respondent told him that he had no money and would come again at 12 O’clock. It was thereafter, the complainant along with Surjit Singh went to the office of the Anti Corruption Zone, Una and lodged FIR Ex. PA against the respondent narrating the entire facts to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Subhash Chand complainant handed over two currency notes of Rs.100/- Ex P-3 and Ex. P-4 to PW8 Dy.S.P. R.R. Bhatia. The currency notes were chemically treated with phenolphthalein powder and their numbers were noted on the memo Ex.PB. Thereafter Dy.S.P. made the demonstration and mixture of sodium carbonate was prepared separately and mixed, its colour turned pink. After giving him necessary instructions, Surjit Singh, PW-2 was directed to act as shadow witness by the said Deputy Superintendent of Police and instructed him to accompany Subhash Chand as a shadow witness. On paying bribe money to the respondent, he was asked to give a signal to the police by placing his hand over his head. Thereafter the complainant and Surjit Singh on the Scooter went to the office of the accused followed by the police party. The complainant asked the respondent about his work, the respondent again asked for Sewa Pani. Then complainant handed over the sum of Rs.200/- to the respondent, which was kept by him in the pocket of his pant, which he was wearing. Thereafter, Surjit Singh gave a signal to the police party and the Dy.S.P R.R. Bhatia came there and caught hold of the respondent from his wrists, arranged for a jug of water, two glass tumblers and a plate. The hand-wash of the respondent was taken in the plate and it was processed with mixture of sodium carbonate, when put together, the mixture turned pink. The pink mixture was filled in the nip Ex.P-1 and sealed with seal impression ‘Q’ and then taken in possession vide memo Ext.PC. Thereafter, at the instance of police, Devinder Kumar Pradhan (not examined) who was with the raiding party recovered two currency notes of Rs.100/- Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively from the back-side pocket of the pant of the respondent. The numbers of the said currency notes, which were already noted down by the Dy.S.P prior to the raid in his office were got compared which matched with the said numbers and were taken by him vide memo Ex PD. The police also took into possession the Pant Ex.P-6 of the respondent and its pocket wash was taken but when mixed with the powder it turned into pink colour. It was put into nip Ex.P5 which was also sealed with seal impression ‘Q’. the Pant Ex.P6 was kept in parcel Ex.P7 and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PE. Thereafter the case property was deposited by the Investigating Officer with MHC PW3 Shrikant on the same day, who on 6.12.1995 sent the sample of nips Exts.P1 and P5 for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. The Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of the witnesses. The report of the forensic science Ex.PF was obtained. On the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented, in the court for the trial of the respondent. The respondent was charge-sheeted under the aforesaid sections, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The accused respondent raised the defence that on 26.10.95 he was on leave but was in his office sitting on the floor wearing pyjama and not pant. His Pant was hanging on the wall. He had gone to the ground floor where there was a post office, for attending a telephonic call while coming down Subhash Chand was found going to his office. After attending the call when he returned and entered his office, he noticed Subhash Chand and police came there. Subhash Chand produced the pant of the accused to the Dy.S.P., which was hanging on the wall. On the search of the Pant, he found two currency notes which he handed over to the Dy.S.P. He did not know from where these currency notes came into the pocket of his pant. To prove his defence, he examined two witnesses. DW1 Shri Amar Chand, Reader to Naib Tehsildar produced the casual leave register, as per which, the respondent Ajit Singh was on Casual leave on October 26, 1995. DW2 Shri Ajit Prasad Sharma, Asstt. Settlement Officer, Kullu produced leave record of Narinder Patwari showing that he was on Earned leave with effect from August 26, 1995 because of his own illness he remained hospitalized from August 26, 1995 to August 31, 1995 and thereafter on medical leave till 11.1.1996. Thus the deposition of the complainant raised a considerable doubt that on 26th October, 1995, Narinder Singh Patwari was present in the office of the Kanungo. Taking note of this fact at the end of trial, the respondent was acquitted on the ground of probability of defence and the fact that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been full of contradictions and further that the respondent was wearing pajama at the relevant time whereas his pant was proved to be hanging on the wall. Thus the recovery of currency notes from the pocket of Pant, possibly could be inserted and planted by someone else in his absence, in the given circumstances. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. Although PW-1 Subhash Chand and PW-2 Surjit Singh, have stated whatever is the prosecution case, but PW-1 in his cross examination stated that he did not know that the respondent was on Casual leave on October 26, 1995 and denied that when the respondent was sitting on the floor of his office wearing a pajama and not the pant whereas PW9 Ujagar Singh, Pradhan though turned hostile to the prosecution but categorically stated that the respondent was wearing a Pajama and his pant was hanging on the peg on the wall. He also stated that Subhash Chand was on the stair case and told that he had done his part of the job. Then police entered the room and had asked the accused to produce his pant hanging on the wall and took out currency notes from his pant. The another witness Devender Singh who was also in the raid was not examined. In Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1191 the Supreme Court observed and held:- “After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe to another person guilty of abetment of bribery the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon”. To what extent, the evidence of the complainant is to be corroborated a note of caution was already laid down by the apex court in the judgment State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, reported in AIR 1958 SC 500 that although uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law but it is necessary that the Judge should give some indication in his judgment that he has had this rule of caution in mind that uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is dangerous and should proceed to give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration on the facts of the particular case before him and show why he considers it safe to convict without corroboration in that particular case. In the instant case, in the given circumstances the necessary rule of corroboration is required from the independent source, firstly because the presence of Patwari Narinder on 26.10.95 in the office of respondent is found to be palpably false and secondly, the complainant and his associate PW2 Surjeet Singh both are the interested witnesses. Further PW9 Pradhan Ujjagar Singh as discussed above, has caused a dent in the authenticity of the prosecution case and another Pradhan Devender Singh of Gram Panchayat who was also stated to be present at that time was not examined. Thus the recovery of currency notes from the pant of the accused as alleged is not proved and the whole case of the prosecution is shrouded by the suspicious circumstances which is not proved beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, as such, the findings of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be interfered with as these are born out from the record. Hence, the appeal sans merits, thus dismissed. The bail bonds entered upon by the respondents at any time during the proceedings of the case are discharged. Send down the records. April 10, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.