IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.1938-SB of 2003 Date of decision: March 18,2008 Kuldeep Singh s/o Ram Kumar ....appellant Versus State of Haryana .....respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal Present: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Addl.A.G.Haryana ----- A.N.Jindal,J. The present appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 5/7.8.2003 passed by Special Judge, Hisar, convicting the accused under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) (ii)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act')and sentencing him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500 under Section 13(2) of the Act and rigourous imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of the Act. Brief resume of the facts is that Ram Rattan, complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) had furnished an affidavit Ex.PD before State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar against the accused-appellant Kuldeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused')that he had applied for seeking electric connection from the neighbours at the time of construction of the house. After the construction of the house, he required electric connection for its flooring etc. For this purpose, he went to the office of Haryana State Electricity Board at Adampur and met Devki Nandan,Lineman, and requested him to get electric connection released within a short period for which he called him on 24.2.1998. On the said date, he demanded Rs.10,000/- and told him that on payment of the said bribe the connection would be released within one and half Criminal Appeal No.1938-SB of 2003 -2- months. As agreed, complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala Branch on 26.2.1998 and went to make the payment, but Devki Nandan was not available. On 27.2.1998, he met Devki Nandan along with the accused. Then Devki Nandan received and counted the money as demanded by him and offered Rs.7000/-to Kuldeep Singh and further disclosed that he would deposit the remaining Rs.3000/- with the Department. After receiving the amount, Devki Nandan directed him to prepare the file and deposit the same in the office. The complainant prepared the file on 2nd or 3rd March and handed over the same to the accused. After some days, as told to him, when the complainant went to the office to enquire about the progress of the matter, the accused directed him to arrange for the meter. On 16th March,1998, he purchased a meter from Hisar. On 17th March, 1998, he took that meter to the accused who demanded Rs.5000/- more while informing the complainant that the present money paid by him was a government deposit which will have to be paid by him. Since the complainant had in his bag Rs.4000/- at that time, he paid the same and promised to pay the remaining amount when the meter is installed at his premises. Though, the accused had told him that the amount of Rs.4000/- was to be deposited in the account but he did not give him any receipt, therefore, he was reluctant to pay Rs.1000/- more. rather, he came to know that the accused had already taken Rs.14,000/- from him without depositing any amount with HSEB but on account of bribe. Though, the accused installed the meter at his premises, yet he was reluctant to affix the official seal unless the remaining sum of Rs.1000/- was paid to him. He also threatened him to get him implicated in a false case. The accused insisted to pay him the amount on 24th April, 1998. Consequently, he lodged the complaint before Inder Singh, DSP regarding the demand of bribe by the accused. On 22nd April,1998, he visited the office of DSP Inder Singh who took him to the office of Tehsildar Adampur. Tehsildar Adampur was not in his chair, therefore, he went to the office of Naib Tehsildar. Inder Singh, DSP showed him two packets of powder, disclosed before him the name of the powder and applied some powder on a blank paper. DSP Inder Singh arranged a jug of water. He got his hand washed in the said Criminal Appeal No.1938-SB of 2003 -3- jug. Thereafter, he took the powder from another packet, put the same in the handwash and mixed the powder in the handwash. Resultantly, the colour of the same turned pinkish. The handwash was also put in two nips. The same were made into parcels and were sealed. He also took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PM. Thereafter, DSP Inder Singh told the complainant to give Rs.1000/- which he proposed to give to the accused. On handing over one currency note of the denomination of Rs.500/- and five currency notes of Rs.100/-,each. Naib Tehsildar put his initials on the said currency notes. DSP Inder Singh applied powder on the aforesaid currency notes and handed over the same to the complainant vide memo Ex. PN which was attested by Vijay Kumar. DSP Inder Singh directed the complainant to hand over the said currency notes to the accused and on acceptance made by him, he was to give signal to them. Consequently, the same was done. The raid was conducted at the house of the accused and the the accused was caught red handed. The illegal gratification handed over by the complainant was recovered from beneath the pillow at the residence of the accused. After completion of certain formalities and receiving the sanction from Chief Engineer, HSEB, challan was presented against the accused. The charge against the accused was framed under Section 7 and 13 of the Act to which he opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges the prosecution examined Inderjit Singh Draftsman (PW1), Des Raj UDC(PW2) , Nafe Singh, Inspector , S.V.B, Hisar(PW3), Dilbagh Rai Jain, SDO(PW4) , Dharampal Mittal, Chief Engineer HSEB(PW5) , Jagdish Nagar, DSP Vigilance(PW6) , Umed Singh H.C. (PW7) , Dhan Singh, Inspector(PW8) , Ram Rattan,complainant (PW9), Vijay Kumar(PW10) , Ram Parkash, Naib Tehsildar(PW 11), Inder Singh, DSP (PW12) . The first submission made by the counsel for the appellant is that since connection has already been sanctioned and the meter has already been installed much prior to the alleged date of trap, no question of demanding or receiving Rs.1000/- arises. Criminal Appeal No.1938-SB of 2003 -4- It was further averred that neither the duty of the accused was to release the connection nor to deposit the money or to affix the seal over the meter. Furthermore, since the connection has already been installed therefore the question of demand and acceptance does not arise. I find substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Dilbagh Rai Jain, Sub-Divisional Officer, HSEB(PW4) , admitted during his cross-examination that before releasing the connection, the meter is tested in Laboratory at Hisar. The seals of the meter are affixed by the Meter Testing authority at Hisar, Gobind Singh was to affix one seal as he had released the connection. He has further admitted that connection was not to be released by the accused. As per service connection order Ex.PD it was not the duty of the accused to release the connection to the complainant. The accused was on leave on 22nd April, 1998. He has proved the certificate Ex.PA to the effect that the job of releasing new connection of domestic and non-domestic was Sh.Govind Singh AFM. Moreover, the complainant himself has also admitted the fact that he got the electric meter installed in his premises through Govind Singh. The relevant lines from his statement are reproduced as under: It is correct that on 16.3.1998, connection order was issued in the name of Govind Singh,Foreman by the SDO, HSEB which is Ex.PD. He got the meter installed in his premises through Govind Singh again said Satyawan ALM. The document is signed by him and Govind Singh, Foreman. I also find merit in the other argument that the prosecution has failed to prove the entire version relating to the initial payment of Rs.14,000/- and the same is found false because no evidence has been led in order to establish that as to when and in whose presence the said amount was paid to the accused. Even according to the complainant Rs.10,000/- was paid by him to Devki Nandan. Regarding Rs.4000/- he himself has said that Rs.3000/- were deposited with the office but the said factum also is shorn of any truth. No evidence has been led to prove the demand of Rs.4000/- by the accused. Even the alleged demand is dated 16th March, 1998, whereas, the complaint is dated Criminal Appeal No.1938-SB of 2003 -5- 22nd April, 1998 i.e. after a period of more than one month when the meter had already been installed. As is clear from the evidence of Des Raj UDC(PW2), Dilbagh Rai Jain, SDO(PW4) and Dharampal Mittal, Chief Engineer, HSEB (PW5) the accused was having no concern with the sanction or release of the electric connection or for installation of electricity meter at the premises of the complainant. The role assigned to him was not to verify as to whether any electric connection was already existing in the premises for which the connection is being taken. Therefore, no occasion for the complainant to pay the bribe to him and demand made by accused could arise as the accused could not extend any benefit in lieu of the money received from the complainant. In the circumstances, story of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused is surrounded by shadow of doubt. Since the accused had no concern or connection with the installation of the meter and release of the connection, therefore, question of contacting him for release of the connection also seems to be false. It may also be noticed that Des Raj UDC, HSEB,(PW2) Adampur has removed the doubts by stating that the fee and security was deposited in the office by the complainant himself which runs contrary to the facts as deposed by Ram Rattan (PW9) that case file was handed over by him to the accused. That apart, the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the time, place and the manner in which the demand was raised and the bribe money was accepted are contradictory on material points. In any case when the basic story regarding payment of Rs.10,000/-as also Rs.4000/- has no legs to stand, then the subsequent version is also to be seen with suspicion. Furthermore, money was not recovered from the person but from under the pillow inside from the residence where he along with other family members resides. The money could be placed under the pillow by any one out of the prosecution witnesses or the raiding party, even despite resistance made by the accused, in order to make the raid a success. DSP Inder Singh has also stated that the accused took out the money only at his asking which also throws Criminal Appeal No.1938-SB of 2003 -6- doubt over the case of the prosecution and it cannot be said that the recovery was effected from the accused. On conspectus of the entire evidence, it would be safe to conclude that the trial Court has failed in appreciating the evidence in right perspective. Consequently, interference in the impugned judgment at my end has become inevitable. Resultantly, I hereby accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of the charges framed against him and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith. The bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged. 18.03.2008 (A.N.Jindal) neenu Judge