IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.575 of 2002 Decided on : 22nd July, 2009 State of HP …Appellant. Versus Brij Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Bipin Chand Negi, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30th April, 2002 of learned Special Judge, Hamirpur, whereby respondent Brij Lal, who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, has been acquitted. So, it has filed the present appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution may be summed up thus. Respondent was employed as Panchayat Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Jhalan, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, in the year 1996. A Scheme known as IRDP was introduced by the Government. As per this scheme, families, living below poverty line, were to be identified and such families were eligible for grant of some concessions and benefits. PW-1 Harnam Singh approached the respondent to verify that Panchayat had recommended his name for inclusion in the said scheme. This was on 16th July, 1996. Respondent asked him to visit his office on the next following day, i.e. 17th July, 1996. PW-1 went to his office on that day around 9 in the morning. Respondent demanded Rs.1000/- as bribe and told PW-1 Harnam Singh that he could pay the money in two instalments of Rs.500/- each, first instalment, immediately and the other after some time. PW-1 Harnam singh informed Pardhan of the Panchayat, named Lekh Raj, who then went to the respondent alongwith Harnam Singh and asked him to do the necessary verification, but the respondent dillydallied and after the Pardhan left, he again …3… demanded bribe of Rs.1000/-. Harnam Singh again approached Pardhan Lekh Raj, who took him to the Police Station. Station House Officer told them to report the matter to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance at Hamirpur. The two then went to Hamirpur. PW-1 Harnam Singh lodged FIR Ext.PW1/A, which was recorded by the Dy. S.P. Case was marked to PW-9 Inspector Kishan Chand for investigation. He asked PW-1 Harnam Singh to produce currency notes of Rs.500/-. He produced five notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to those currency notes. PW-1 Harnam Singh was asked to pass on those notes to the respondent. Pardhan Lekh Raj was asked to act as shadow witness. Thereafter PW-1 Harnam Singh, accompanied by Pardhan Lekh Raj, left for village Jhalan, where Panchayat Office is situated. PW- 9 Inspector Kishan Chand and other police officials followed them in a jeep. …4… 3. Around 7 in the evening, PW-1 Harnam Singh went to the office of the respondent and paid him Rs.500/-, treated with phenolphthalein powder, as bribe. Respondent placed those currency notes under the table cloth. Shadow witness, on seeing the respondent accepting bribe, gave pre-fixed signal to the waiting police party. Soon, PW-9 Inspector Kishan Chand, accompanied by other police officials, entered the Panchayat Office. Respondent was overpowered. He was made to wash his hands. Sodium Carbonate was added to the hand wash. It turned pink. Respondent then produced the currency notes from underneath the table cloth, which were taken into possession. A resolution Ext.PW9/A of the Panchayat was also taken into possession. As per this resolution, three persons, including PW-1 Harnam Singh, had been recommended by the Panchayat for inclusion in the list of IRDP persons on 22.6.1996. Sanction to prosecute the respondent was obtained form the Director, Rural Development. Thereafter, respondent was challaned. …5… 4. Trial Court charged the respondent with offence, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and on his pleading not guilty put him on trial. 5. Prosecution examined PW-1 Harnam Singh, PW-2 Hakam Singh and PW-9 Inspector Kishan Chand, to prove the case. Trial Court did not believe their testimony being inconsistent and contradictory and acquitted the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 7. Prosecution did not examine the shadow witness, namely Lekh Raj, who according to the prosecution version, was also witness to the alleged demand for bribe, by the respondent. PW-1 Harnam Singh made contradictory statement, with respect to the demand for bribe. In the examination-in-chief he stated that the demand was made for the first time on 17th July, 1996, but in the cross-examination he stated that …6… demand of Rs.1000/- was made on 16th July also. However, in FIR Ext.PW1/A, there is no mention of demand for bribe of Rs.1000/- on 16th July, though it does find mention in the FIR that on 16th July, when Harnam Singh approached the respondent, he asked him to visit him in the office alongwith the requisite fee. 8. PW-1 Harnam Singh and PW-2 Hakam singh stated that the bribe was accepted by the respondent in his office room, where there was only one table and one chair and he had placed the currency notes under the cloth cover of the table, lying in the said office room. PW-9 Inspector Kishan Chand, however, stated that the currency notes were recovered from underneath the cloth cover of a table lying in the residential room of the respondent. According to him, besides the table and the chair, there were several easy chairs, a cot, a folding bed, another table and so many other things in the room. Site plan Ext.PW9/B also shows that the …7… recovery was effected from the residential room of the respondent. 9. Again, according to PW-1 Harnam Singh, he travelled back to village Jhalan from Hamirpur alongwith the police party in the police jeep, but PW-9 Inspector Kishan Chand says that PW-1 Harnam Singh and Pardhan Lekh Raj went to the village, ahead of them, by some other mode. Further, PW-1 Harnam Singh says that when he went to village Jhalan to pay the bribe, respondent was not in his office, but at a shop about 100-150 metres away from his office and he went there and from there accompanied him to the office and then paid the bribe. PW-2 Hakam Singh, however, says that when he and PW-1 Harnam Singh went to the office of respondent, he was already there. Statement of PW-9 Inspector Kishan Chand shows that respondent was at his residence when PW1 Harnam Singh went to pay him the bribe, because according to his statement, when he entered the room of the respondent, he was wearing a Baniyan (vest) and pants. …8… Respondent could not have gone to a shop, at a considerable distance, wearing Baniyan (vest) only. 10. The aforesaid contradictions apart, it appears that hand wash turned pink not on account of any traces of phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the respondent, on account of his having handled the currency notes, but on account of addition of phenolphthalein powder to the water, before the respondent was made to wash his hands. Both PW-1 Harnam Singh and PW-2 Hakam Singh testified that when the water was brought, some powder was added to it, before the respondent was made to wash his hands. 11. Shadow witness, as already noticed, was not examined by the prosecution. 12. In view of the above discussion, acquittal of the respondent by the trial Court cannot be said to be unjustified. Hence, the appeal is dismissed July 22, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J