Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.504 of 2001. Dated of Decision: July 02, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Sanjeev Kumar. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the Respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : The State felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Una, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offences charged under Section 7 & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and filed the instant appeal. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the father of PW2 Ganesh Dutt, resident of Village Saloh had taken a loan to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- for the purchase of a tractor from The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, by mortgaging his agricultural land. The said loan was repaid in the month of June, 1988. The complainant Ganesh Dutt visited the respondent in the Patwarkhana Saloh on 22.6.1998 to get the No Objection Certificate in the name of his father from the respondent- Patwari to make the entry of redemption of mortgage in the revenue records. He met the respondent and one more Patwari was sitting with him in Patwarkhana. Ganesh Dutt asked the respondent to enter the mutation of redemption in the name of his father. The respondent assured - 2 - to do that, but he put him off making some excuse. Finally on 4.8.1998, he again visited the Patwarkhana around 11 a.m. for the same purpose. The respondent demanded Rs.400/- to do said job. The complainant paid the amount. The respondent entered the mutation in the register Ex.PH on the same day. The complainant alongwith Shyam Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram again went to the Patwarkhana at 4 p.m. Alongwith the respondent, one more Patwari named Om was sitting with him. Ganesh Dutt in the presence of Shyam Lal told the respondent to get the mutation which was entered by him, attested as he wanted to purchase a new tractor. The respondent discussed the matter with the another Patwari, present there and asked the complainant to pay Rs.1500/- as bribe. Ganesh Dutt expressed his inability to do so, but the respondent gave him time to arrange the money and to come on 6.8.1998. On 6.8.1998, PW2 Ganesh Dutt made a report Ex.PA/1 to the Dy.S.P. Anti Corruption Zone, Una. He was told to handover the currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each to him. Complainant gave three notes of Rs.500/- each Exts.P1 to P3 to PW6 Dy.S.P. Chain Singh. He applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and gave it to PW2 Ganesh Dutt and prepared the memo Ex.PB/1 to this effect and gave instructions to the complainant not to tamper with it. Shyam Lal aforesaid was sent to Patwarkhana alongwith the complainant as a shadow witness. The police raiding party followed them and kept themselves away at some distance. When Shyam Lal gave the signal, they entered into Patwarkhana. PW6 Investigating Officer introduced himself to the respondent and caught hold of him from his both the wrists. A plate was procured. Two glasses and one water jug were arranged through other policemen. The hands of the respondent were washed into the plate, but its colour remained the same. Thereafter the Investigating Officer prepared a solution of sodium carbonate in the separate glass, but it did not change its colour. Thereafter both the mixtures were mixed up, but - 3 - again it did not change its colour but it remained like natural water. The hand wash was put into nip Ex.P4 and sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB. Respondent was asked by the Investigating Officer to produce the currency notes received from Ganesh Dutt complainant, but he refused to have taken any money from him. Thereafter, the respondent pointed out the register Ex.PF where the money was kept. PW6 Investigating Officer called Shaym Lal (PW3) and asked him to take out the money kept in the register. The numbers of currency notes tallied with the numbers noted by him earlier and a memo Ex.PB/1 to this effect was prepared. Thereafter these currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD and sealed in an envelope Ex.PC. The mutation register Ex.PH was taken into possession. The site plan was also prepared. The appointment and the posting orders of the respondents were taken into possession. After completing the investigation, the challan was put in the court for the trial of the respondent. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondent, he was charge- sheeted. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. At the end of the trial, he was acquitted on the grounds that the Investigating Officer did not join the independent and disinterested witnesses in the raiding party during the investigation of the case to inspire confidence in the prosecution case. Anoher Shyam Lal son of Shri Daulat Ram, who was a member of the raiding party was not examined, whereas PW3 Shyam Lal was called from the neighbourhood, who stated that the respondent was working in his office and took out the currency notes Exts.P1 to P3 and handed over it to the police and he also stated that Ex.PF was not the same register from which the money was taken out. He further stated that the currency notes were lying in the another register. He did not support the case of the - 4 - prosecution on any other aspect nor he was declared hostile. There were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and further that the version given by the complainant was not natural. He appears to have been hobnobbing with the police officials. There was no evidence that the money given by the complainant was accepted by the respondent, whereas, it was found to have been kept in some register. When the police entered into the Patwarkhana, the immediate reaction of the respondent was that he did not take any bribe. The possibility of keeping the amount in the register by the complainant could not have been ruled out. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has forcefully argued that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are cogent, trustworthy and the learned trial court has wrongly rejected their version. I have reappraised the evidence on record. Though PW2 Ganesh Dutt has stated that respondent had demanded Rs.1500/-as a bribe on 4.8.1998 and he approached the Vigilance staff and made a complaint, but he did not say that on 4.8.1998 another Patwari was also present with him and the respondent in consultation with him demanded Rs.1500/-, which goes contrary to his earlier version. Further, the case of the prosecution is that Shyam Lal (PW3) was sent as a shadow witness with the complainant and he was told to give them a signal. Neither the complainant nor PW3 Shyam Lal s/o Karam Chand stated so, whereas PW2 has stated that he gave the signal to the police after he gave the money to the respondent on his demand. He also stated that at that time another Patwari was present there, when he had gone there. The complainant has further stated that he (PW2) had kept the currency notes in the file lying on the table of the respondent, which fact goes contrary to the earlier part of the statement that he had handed over the currency notes to the respondent. He did not say about washing of the hands of the accused-respondent with the phenolphthalein powder as stated by - 5 - Investigating Officer. Though, he has denied the suggestion in his cross- examination that the respondent did not demand any money and he had himself put the money in the file when the respondent was busy in his work, but it is made out from the circumstances on record coupled with his statement referred above. PW3 Shyam Lal son of Karam Chand was joined as a member of the raiding party. He was called only to the Patwarkhana by the Dy. S.P.. According to him, at that time respondent was sitting on his chair. Dy. S.P. asked him (PW3) to hand over the money from the register lying on the table of the respondent. He took out the currency notes of Rs.1500/- from the register on the table of respondent, but according to him Ex.PF was not the same register. The perusal of his statement shows that he was not at all associated in the raiding party right from the very beginning nor the hands of the respondent were washed in his presence and on the top of it another Shyam Lal who was sent with the complainant by the police was not examined to lend strength to the case of the prosecution and the evidence already adduced on the record is discrepant, unworthy of credence, which is full of material contradiction. PW6 Chain Singh Dy. S.P, who was Investigating Officer has stated that at that time another Patwari was sitting in the room of the respondent and One Kehar Singh was also present, but none of them were examined by the prosecution. Further, the hand wash of the respondent did not change the colour, which means that the respondent did not touch the currency notes. Keeping in view the defence raised and the above circumstance, it may be case of planting. Thus the case against the respondent could not be proved beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. For the reasons aforesaid, the view taken by the learned trial court is borne out from the record and I do not find any perversity therein. - 6 - Accordingly, it requires no interference. The appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. July 02, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.