IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.449 of 2002 Date of decision : June 25, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ranjit Singh alias Ajit Singh …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. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 15th September, 2001, of learned Special Judge, Una, whereby respondent Ranjit Singh alias Ajit Singh, a Patwari, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per record, is like this. On 11th October, 1996, late Smt. Mohni Devi, accompanied by PW-1 Parshotam Singh, went to Anti Corruption Office at Una, where PW-9 R.R. Bhatia, Dy.S.P., was present. She lodged FIR Ex. PA, per which respondent, who was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle Saloh, had demanded a bribe of Rs.200/-, for issuing Naksha Alf, which said Mohni Devi required for producing in a partition case, pending before Tehsildar, Una. PW-9 R.R. Bhatia asked Mohni Devi to produce two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. Mohni Devi produced such Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… notes, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder. It was demonstrated to Mohni Devi, who was accompanied by PW-1 Parshotam Singh, how an object, treated with phenolphthalein powder and then washed with water, turned the wash pink, when sodium carbonate solution was added to it. Memo of such demonstration was prepared, which is Ex. PB. PW-1 Parshotam Singh was instructed to act as a shadow witness. He was told to give signal to the police, by putting his hand on his head, after the bribe was accepted by the respondent. Thereafter, PW-9 R.R. Bhatia, Dy.S.P., accompanied by an Inspector, PW-10 Mohinder Singh, Mohni Devi and PW-1 Parshotam Singh, went to village Saloh, which is at a distance of 10 kms from his office (at Una). PW-2 Shri Sham Lal, Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat, was associated as an independent member of the party. Mohni Devi was dropped at some distance from the Patwarkhana and directed to go to the Patwarkhana to pay the bribe. PW-1 Parshotam Singh was directed to follow her as shadow witness, with the instruction that as soon as he noticed the acceptance of bribe by the respondent, he should give signal to the police party, waiting in hiding. Mohni Devi went to the Patwarkhana of the respondent and told him that she had brought money and asked him to give copy of Naksha Alf. Respondent accepted the money and started preparing the copy of the Naksha Alf. Parshotam Singh then gave the already fixed signal to the police. Soon thereafter, PW-9 R.R. Bhatia, accompanied by PW-10 Mohinder Singh and PW-2 Sham Lal, entered Patwarkhana. Respondent was overpowered and was caught …3… hold of by his wrists. He was made to wash his hands with water. Solution of sodium carbonate was added to the hand- wash and it turned pink. Hand-wash was poured into nip, Ex. P-1, and sealed with a seal that produced the impression of English letter ‘A’. Currency notes, accepted as bribe by the respondent, were found lying on his table, which too were taken into possession. Their numbers tallied with the numbers already noted in the Panchnama Ex. PB. Nip Ex. P-1 was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ex. PC, reported that the contents of the nip had traces of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein. 3. Respondent was charged with offences, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by the Sessions Court. He pleaded not guilty. So, he was put on trial. 4. Mohni Devi died before the start of the trial. Prosecution examined Parshotam Singh as PW-1, Sham Lal as PW-2, R.R. Bhatia as PW-9 and Mohinder Singh as PW-10, to prove the charge. 5. Respondent took the plea that PW-1 Parshotam Singh was the brain behind his false implication in the case, as he had not obliged him to make an entry in the Jamabandi, on the basis of a mutation order, as the mutation pertained to transfer of property of two persons in the name of his son, but the transfer had been effected only by one of those two persons. PW-1 Parshotam Singh was examined on the lines of this plea. Though he denied that he had approached the respondent to make entry in the Jamabandi, on the basis of mutation, yet he …4… admitted that mutation had been sanctioned, but it had not been given effect to in the Jamabandi, which admission, to some extant, probabilises respondent’s plea that he was approached to make entry in the Jamabandi by PW-1 Parshotam Singh, but he did not oblige him. 6. Testimony of PW-1 Parshotam Singh is, to some extant, contradictory to the earliest version, which was given to PW-9 R.R. Bhatia, vide FIR Ex. PA. As per Ex. PA, Mohni Devi, accompanied by PW-1 Parshotam Singh, had first visited the Patwari on 10th October, 1996 and it was on that date that the Patwari (the respondent) had demanded bribe of Rs.200/-, for the first time. The two again visited the Patwari on the next following day, i.e. on 11th October, 1996, and the Patwari again demanded bribe and it was then that they went to PW-9 R.R. Bhatia, at Una, and lodged the FIR, Ex. PA. However, while in the witness-box, PW-1 Parshotam Singh stated that the bribe was demanded by the respondent only on 11th October, 1996 and not on 10th October, 1996. That means the earliest version itself is false, atleast to the aforesaid extent. 7. Testimony of PW-9 R.R. Bhatia also does not inspire confidence. Mohni Devi accompanied by PW-1 Parshotam Singh reached his office at 11.30 a.m. The fact is stated by the witness himself, in his testimony as PW-9. FIR Ex. PA also shows that she reached his office at 11.30 a.m. FIR is quite lengthy and its recording must have taken not less than 20 minutes. Thereafter, the witness gave demonstration to Mohni Devi and PW-1 Parshotam Singh, how an object treated with …5… phenolphthalein powder, when washed with water turned the wash pink. A memorandum of this was also prepared, which too is very lengthy. The process is supposed to taken atleast an hour. That means the witness could not have started from Una, where his office is located and where the FIR was registered and demonstration given, before 1 p.m. It takes atleast 20 minutes to reach Saloh from Una by a vehicle. The witness in his testimony as PW-9 has stated that he reached Saloh at 12 noon and it was there that he associated PW-12 Sham Singh as an independent witness. If he reached Saloh at 12, then he did not record the FIR nor did he give any demonstration or prepare the Panchnama Ex. PB, before leaving his office for Saloh, where the Patwarkhana is situated. 8. Possibility of the contents of Ex. P-1 having been tampered with, before it was sent to the Chemical Examiner, can also not be ruled out, because the seal used for sealing this nip remained with PW-9 R.R. Bhatia. The reason for taking this view is that in his testimony as PW-9, R.R. Bhatia did not say that he had handed over the seal, after use, to any other person nor did any other witness examined by the prosecution say so. In view of the abovestated position, I do no think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. June 25, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J