IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 626/2002 Date of decision: 8. 3. 2010 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Ved Parkash ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh (Oral) Acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been challenged by the State in this appeal. Heard and gone through the record. Necessary facts for deciding the present appeal can be stated thus. Respondent was posted as Mining Officer at Una. PW1 Shadi Lal Goswami was a mining 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - contractor. On 18.1.1997, complainant was challaned by the respondent under the Mines Act. Thereafter, he approached his friend PW2 Satish Kumar. He further contacted the respondent telephonically on 20.1.1997 and enquired about the facts but the respondent demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- for canceling the challan against the complainant. The complainant approached the Anti Corruption Department at Una and lodged the FIR Ext. PA that the respondent was demanding bribe from him. Complainant (PW1) handed over ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- Ext. P9 to Ext. P12 and P15 to P20 to the Investigating Officer. Their numbers were jotted down and memo Ext. PB was prepared. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder, thereafter put in the pocket of the complainant with the direction that he should hand over these treated currency notes to the respondent on demand. Demo was conducted in the presence of the complainant and witnesses PW2 Satish Kumar as to how the said powder with the alleged sodium carbonate when - 3 - mixed would turn pink, to this effect memo Ext. PB was prepared. PW2 Satish Kumar was deputed as shadow witness with the direction to give signal to the Raiding Party headed by PW7 Dy.S.P. Raghu Nath Bhatia when the currency notes are accepted by the respondent. As per plan, complainant proceeded to the office of the respondent with PW2 and asked the respondent about his challan. The respondent asked the complainant to place on his table an amount of Rs.400/- for doing the work, as aforesaid. Respondent then tore off the challan and picked-up the currency notes of Rs. 400/- put it in the pocket of his coat. PW2 Satish Kumar signaled the Raiding Party. They arrived there. Respondent was caught hold from his arms, thereafter his hands were got washed with the mixture of sodium carbonate. It turned pink. It was collected in a nip Ext.P1 and was sealed with seal impression ‘Z’ and taken into possession vide Ext. PC. The respondent took currency notes of - 4 - Rs. 400/- from the pocket of his coat, its Serial numbers tallied with those mentioned in Ext. PB prepared earlier by the police and was sealed in envelop Ext.P2 and then taken into possession vide memo Ext.PD. Challan, which was torn into four pieces was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PF and Ext. P21 and one part also sealed in envelop Ext. P3. The handkerchief P13 was said to be in the pocket of the coat of the respondent, was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PH and it was sealed in the envelop vide memo Ext. P5. The pocket wash of the coat was also taken by the same process and mixture was put in the nip Ext. P6. The nip was taken into possession after sealing with seal ‘Z’ vide memo Ext. PJ and the coat was also taken into possession in envelope Ext. P7. The complainant also handed over the remaining treated currency worth Rs.600/- Ext. P15 to P20 to the Police which were sealed in the envelope Ext. P8 and sealed with impression ‘Z’. Site plan of the place of incident was also prepared. Hand-wash, pocket-wash - 5 - and handkerchief-wash were sent for the forensic examination. As per report Ext. PN it was having traces of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. After obtaining prosecution sanction, challan was presented in the court for trial of the respondent. Prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He abjured the guilt and claim trial. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted. The defense of the respondent was denial simplicitor. At the very out set, it is pertinent to note that the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution case so far as the recovery of handkerchief from the pocket of the coat of the respondent, as alleged is concerned. Further in his cross- examination he categorically stated that when treated currency notes were handed over to him by the Investigating Officer, he put the same in his own pocket with his right hand and when he reached in the office of the respondent, he shook hands - 6 - with the respondent. This fact is corroborated by PW2. PW1 categorically stated that he along with shadow witness Satish Kumar went to the office of the respondent, followed by the Police party where they stayed for about 4-5 months. He did not say anything about the demand raised by the respondent for an amount of Rs.400/-, rather he stated that he kept the amount of Rs.400/- on the table and then he shook hands with the respondent and when the respondent was leaving the room, police party entered there. This version has totally shaken the prosecution case. Further, complainant also stated that handkerchief-wash was collected in the plate and put it to the plates likewise which was done with respect to the pocket wash etc. He nowhere stated that the separate plates were used by the Investigating officer for collecting the pocket wash and also handkerchief wash. PW2 Satish Kumar also stated that he did not see respondent putting currency notes in his pocket. He further stated that the complainant placed the currency - 7 - notes of Rs.400/- on the table and he came out from the room. This witness is none else then the partner of the firm of the complainant who is alleged to have contacted the respondent at his instance when the report was lodged with the Police. He was accompanying the complainant shows his interestedness. Further, during the raid, he remained with the Police. Further PW2 also stated that the respondent told him that he could impose fine of Rs.400/- on the complainant under the Mines Act and it was on this, the complainant kept amount of Rs.400/- on his table, simultaneously Police party entered inside the room and apprehended the respondent. PW3 Narinder Sharma, and Milkhi Ram SDM the then Deputy Director (Industries) were called by the police at the time of raid but both of them did not support the prosecution case. Although the Investigating officer PW7 has supported the prosecution case but the aforesaid witnesses have caused irreparable dent in the prosecution case, thus two views are deducible from the evidence on record. The - 8 - benefit of the view favourable to the accused undoubtedly has to be given to him. For the above reasons, the learned trial court rightly disbelieved the version of the prosecution thus, the grounds of acquittal are borne out from the evidence on record therefore, no interference is called for. The appeal is without merit hence dismissed. Send down the record. March 8, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)