Crl. Revision. No. 2169 of 2010 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2169 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.8.2011. State of Haryana .......Petitioner Vs. Narinder Singh Dhull ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.K.Hooda, Addl. A.G, Haryana for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Respondent had faced the trial for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . The prosecution story in brief was that the complainant was Sarpanch of the village Patla. Respondent raised a demand of ` 20,000/- from her. Since the complainant had refused to fulfill the said demand, the respondent had hurled abuses at the complainant and had criminally intimidated her and had called her Chamari. The complainant reported the matter to the higher authorities but no action was taken. The prosecution led its evidence in support of its case. The trial court acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him vide judgment dated 11.3.2010. Hence, the present petition by the state. Crl. Revision. No. 2169 of 2010 -2 - After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Learned Special Judge in the impugned judgment dated 11.3.2010 has observed that the complainant had averred in her complaint to Director General of Police, Haryana, received on 12.6.2008 that although she had complied with the directions of the respondent but he had demanded ` 20,000/- from her and had abused her by calling her Chamari, untouchable and lowly placed woman and had pushed her. Thereafter, there was a gap of two and a half months. Fifteen days prior to the lodging of the complaint, the complainant was again allegedly summoned by the respondent and again demand of ` 20,000/- was raised from her and she was also called names. In the supplementary statement recorded by the investigating officer on 20.6.2008, the complainant averred that she had gone to the office of the respondent on 11.4.2008 along with her husband and other persons. The respondent asked the complainant to meet him at his residence. When the complainant went to the residence of the respondent, then the respondent again raised demand of ` 20,000/-. The complainant and her companions protested qua the behaviour of the respondent and he abused her and asked her Chamari, Dhedni and lowly placed woman who would be taught by him appropriate lessons in running the office of Sarpanch. The complainant was again called after 10-15 days and at 3.00 P.M. he again raised the same demand in the presence of her husband and others. In the present case, the complainant was Sarpanch of the village, whereas the respondent was posted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Learned Special Judge has observed in the judgment that it was evident from the record that Crl. Revision. No. 2169 of 2010 -3 - boundary wall had already been constructed but excessive area was shown by the Junior Engineer with a view to extract more money. Since the wall of the cremation ground had already been constructed upto February 2008, then there was no occasion for the respondent to have raised demand of ` 20,000/- on 11.4.2008 for permission to the complainant-Sarpanch to construct the boundary wall. It had also come in evidence that there was difference in the estimate and the actual construction carried out at the spot. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat had placed the services of the Sarpanch-complainant under suspension vide order dated 15.4.2008. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the respondent to demand bribe from the suspended Sarpanch. In an inquiry conducted against the complainant by District Block and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat, she had been found to have committed grave irregularities. The accused-respondent had been directed to pursue the inquiry, ordered to be held against the complainant, on behalf of the department. In these circumstances, the possibility that the accused had been falsely involved in this case could not be ruled out. Hence, no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court is made out. Learned state counsel has failed to point out any misreading of the evidence on record by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 04, 2011 Gurpreet