1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2004 R.N.Singh S/o Balvant Singh Chauhan R/o Village Khajuri, Raipur District Bijnor, food inspector Dehadun District Dehradun ….............Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……….Respondent Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, Advocate, present for the appellant Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2004, passed by IInd Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Nainital, 2 in Special Criminal Case No. 01 of 2002, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant R.N.Singh under section 7 and section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short PCA) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of ` 2,000/- under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of ` 3,000/- under section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused/appellant R.N.Singh, was Food Inspector with Nagar Palika, Dehradun. On 10.12.1999, PW1 Charan Das made a complaint to Police Superintendent Vigilance, stating that for a renewal of license to be issued by Nagar Palika, the accused/appellant R.N.Singh was demanding ` 800/- from him. On that complaint in which 3 the number of currency notes were also mentioned, a trap was laid on 10.12.1999, by the vigilance team headed by PW4 N.K.Tyagi, Inspector of Police. According to prosecution case, the complainant (PW1 Charan Das) after having talks with the accused/appellant R.N.Singh, gave him eight currency notes of ` 100 with phenolphthalein powder, which were recovered from him by the vigilance team. Thereafter, the hands of the food inspector were washed and the water turned pink on account of phenolphthalein powder. The accused/appellant R.N.Singh, was arrested. The Crime No. 737 of 1999, was registered on the report of PW4 N.K.Tyagi, at police station Sadar, Dehradun, on the very day. After investigation, charge sheet (Ex A9) was filed before the court concerned by the Investigating Officer, J.P.Sharma, for trial of the accused/appellant R.N.Singh. (4) The Special Judge (PCA), after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., heard the parties, and framed charge of offences punishable under 4 section 7 and under section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 17.09.2002, against the accused R.N.Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Charan Das (partially hostile), PW2 Radhye Shyam (hostile), PW3 Harish Dhavan (hostile), PW4 Nand Kishor Tyagi, PW5 J.P.Sharma (Investigating Officer) and PW6 Head Constable Shivnandan Sharma. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused, under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, he alleged that the prosecution case is false, and he is innocent. He further pleaded that only because the accused/appellant gave notice to the complainant Charan Das, as to why, he should not be prosecuted for running the grocery shop without license, he got him implicated in the criminal case. No evidence in defence was adduced. It is also pertinent to mention that the court got examined CW1 Shankar Prasad, to get proved the sanction for prosecution of the accused in the case. (5) The trial court after hearing the parties found 5 that accused/appellant R.N.Singh guilty of charge of offences punishable under section 7 and under section 13(2) of PCA 1988. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of ` 2,000/- under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of ` 3,000/- under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved by this, appeal was preferred. (6) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution case is that, the accused/appellant R.N.Singh, was a Food Inspector who demanded ` 800/- as bribe for getting the renewal of license to be issued to Nagar Palika. In this connection, it is pointed out that the accused/appellant R.N.Singh, the Food Inspector was not the licensing authority. It is also argued that had the accused gone to the Nagar Palika, he would have got prepared license to run the grocery shop. It is further argued that the entire story of demand of bribe is false. 6 (7) The most important witnesses of this case examined on behalf of the prosecution are PW1 Charan Das complainant, PW2 Radhye Shyam and PW3 Harish Dhavan. Rest of the witnesses are the members of police party. (8) PW1 Charan Das complainant himself, has not fully supported the prosecution case. He has stated in his examination that he remained down stairs, and did not go with the police team upstairs to see the recovery of the amount given by him. He was got declared hostile by at a later stage. Not only this, both the public witnesses PW2 Radhye Shyam and PW3 Harish Dhavan have stated that neither any money was paid in their presence to the accused, not anything was recovered in their presence from the accused by the police team. (9) Both these witnesses were also, got declared hostile by the prosecution. (10) Considering the testimony of PW1 Charan 7 Das (partially hostile), public witnesses namely PW2 Radhye Shyam and PW3 Harish Dhavan, (both turned hostile) the evidence given by PW4 N.K.Tyagi, Inspector, can not be said to be trust worthy beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the amount of ` 800/- was not recovered from the person of the accused. As such, in the opinion of this court the trial court has erred in law in holding the charge of offence punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stood proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (11) For the reasons as discussed above, this court is of the view that since the charge as against the accused R.N.Singh is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to acquittal from the charge. (12) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 02.07.2004, passed by IInd Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Nainital, in Special Criminal Case No. 01 of 8 2002, is hereby set aside. Accused/appellant R.N.Singh is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 26.12.2011 Nahid