IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 74/2001. Reserved on :08.01.2008. Decided on: 11.01.2008. State of H.P. … … Appellant. Versus Chhape Ram. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. M.A. Khan, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The respondent was prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Corruption Case No. 2 of 1999 in the Court of Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. and was acquitted on 5.10.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 5.10.2000. The brief facts which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial Court necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that Ved Ram, PW- 1 obtained the copy of jamabandi Ex.PW-5/A from the respondent who was posted as Patwari, Patwar Circle, Dobhi for the purpose of transferring the land to his sons. He sent his son for correction of the jamabandi since Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - certain discrepancies were pointed out by the document writer. He got endorsement made from Shri Parkash Chand, Naib Tehsildar (PW-5) on the jamabandi. Despite production of the same, accused declined to issue correct jamabandi specifying therein the correct share of the complainant. According to the prosecution story, the respondent on 16.7.1998 agreed to prepare and supply fresh jamabandi in case he was paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- by the complainant. The complainant refused to pay the illegal gratification to the respondent and accompanied by Narain Singh (PW-3) went to the office of Vigilance Department, Kullu and narrated the sequence of events to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jitender Parkash (PW-9). F.I.R. (Ex.PW-1/B) on the statement of Ved Ram was recorded. The complainant was instructed to pay the money to the accused only on demand by him. The complainant alongwith Narain Singh and shadow witness, Umesh alongwith police party left for Patwarkahan, Dobhi. Shri Umesh was instructed to sit near and outside the window of Patwarkhana and to give signal to the raiding party, after demand of the accused. The complainant demanded fresh jamabandi and accused enquired whether Rs.1,000/- has been brought, which money, treated with phenolphthalein patheline powder, was handed over to the accused. Shri Umesh Kumar signaled the police party who entered the Patwarkhana, nabbed the accused after disclosing their identity and the hands of the accused were got washed, which turned pink. The accused on demand produced currency notes Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 from his desk underneath the papers, where he had placed them after accepting them from the complainant. The accused was charged for committing an offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution had examined 10 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. The accused was examined under Section 313 of - 3 - Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. acquitted the respondent on 5.10.2000, hence, this appeal by the State. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal had supported the judgment dated 5.10.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Shri Ved Ram, complainant has appeared as PW-1. he has stated that he went to the police station at 10.00 a.m.. PW-3, Shri Narain Singh has also stated that he went to the police station at 10.00 a.m. to lodge the F.I.R. PW-2, Umesh, PW-8, Kahan Singh and PW-9, Jitender Parkash have stated that the complainant came to the police station at 7.00 a.m. and thereafter the raiding party proceeded to Patwarkhana. There is variance in the timings given by PWs.1, 3, 2, 8 and 9 about the time when the F.I.R. was registered. There is a difference of about three hours in the timing given by the witnesses. The time recorded in the F.I.R. is 7.30 a.m. The timing is important in this case since after the registration of the F.I.R., the raiding party was constituted and proceeded to Dobhi to nab the accused. PW-2 Umesh Kumar has stated that the raiding party left for Dobhi at 8.00 a.m. and returned from Dobhi at 11.00 a.m. PW-3 Narain Singh has stated that they left for Dobhi from Kullu at about 10.15 a.m. and came back from Patwarkhana at 11.00 a.m. PW-8 Kahan Singh had stated that the raiding party left from Kullu at 8.00 a.m. and reached Dobhi at 8.40 a.m. Similarly, there is variance in the statements of PW-3, PW-8 and PW-9 in the manner in which the hand wash of accused had taken place. PW-3, Narain Singh, PW-8 Kahan Singh and PW-9 Jitender Parkash have stated that the hands of the accused were washed in a thali, however, PW-2 has stated that hand wash had taken place in plastic Chrimchy. - 4 - Now the Court has to consider about the constitution of the raiding party after the registration of F.I.R. Umesh Kumar, PW-2 has claimed that he went to the Vigilance Department office of his own. According to him Ved Ram was already present there when he reached the office. However, PW-9, Jitender Parkash has stated that he called for Umesh Kumar since he was known to him. Surprisingly, PW-8, Kahan Singh has stated that Umesh Kumar was called after registration of the F.I.R. through some official. It casts doubt about the presence of Umesh Kumar at police station in view of the conflicting versions of the prosecution witnesses. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses qua the manner in which currency notes were recovered from the accused. PW-1, Ved Ram and PW-2 Umesh Kumar have stated that the respondent- accused took the money from the desk below the papers. However, PW-9, Jitender Parkash has stated that there were no papers on the desk of the accused at the time he took the money from the desk. PW-2, Umesh Kumar has only stated that he gave signal to the police, but has not stated that on demand by the accused, the money was paid to him by the complainant. There are thus contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution with regard to the registration of F.I.R., the constitution of the raiding party, the time at which the raiding party left and came from Dobhi, the manner in which the money was recovered from the accused. The accused has also taken up the plea during the course of the trial that jamabandi Ex.PW-5/A was prepared from Parat Patwar and it was true copy of the original jamabandi register. He has relied upon the copy of jamabandi Ex.DW-1/A to Ex.DW-1/D for the year 1994-95. It is evident from Ex.DW-1/C and Ex.DW-1/D, which are photo copies of jamabandi prepared from Parat Sarkar, issued by the Copying Agency, Kullu that they - 5 - are verbatim true and exact copies of jamabandi Ex.PW-5/A. If the wrong shares of the joint owners were recorded in the jamabandi, the accused- respondent of his own could not have corrected the same. During the course of cross-examination, Ved Ram, complainant has stated that he wanted to transfer half share of his land in Khasra No.1583/1093, 1585/1093 and 1588/1093 to his son from his first wife. However, no evidence had been led by the prosecution to prove that either the plaintiff or his wife had any share in land comprised in these khasra numbers. It lends support to the defence taken by the accused that the complainant had been insisting to issue jamabandi showing his share in land of Khasra No.248/356 and when he refused to oblige, a case was fabricated against him. From the above discussion it is clear that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has rightly acquitted the accused. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondent stand discharged. January 11, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge