IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 431 of 2009 a/w Cr. Appeal No. 486 of 2009 Reserved on: 11.08.2011 Decided on: 19.10.2011 Cr. Appeal No. 431 of 2009 Prem Lal …Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. ............................................................................................................ Cr. Appeal No. 486 of 2009 Praveen Zinta …Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. Cr. Appeal No. 431 of 2009 For the appellant: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. ............................................................................................................. Cr. Appeal No. 486 of 2009 For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same judgment 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- delivered by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby he convicted the accused Praveen Zinta for having committed offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8 and 13 (i) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accused Prem Lal for having committed offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for six months and pay fine of ` 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month. 2. The allegation of the prosecution is that the two accused demanded a bribe from complainant, Smt. Vandana Thakur, for getting her map sanctioned and they were trapped and after investigation, were charged for having committed offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8 and 13 (i) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After trial they have been convicted. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, Smt. Vandana Thakur (PW-1), who is a senior officer in the H.P. Secretariat, Shimla, had some work regarding the sanction of map of her house with Shri Praveen Zinta, who was then working as Junior Engineer in the Special Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the SADA). According to her, she constructed a house in Shimla -: 3 :- Development Area and during this construction, certain deviations were noticed. In the month of August, 2005, she visited the office of accused Praveen Zinta to get the map of her house sanctioned. He kept assuring her that he will do the work, but her map was not sanctioned till 30th August, 2006. On 31st August, 2006, she again went to the office of Shri Praveen Zinta at 11.00 a.m. and then he asked her to come again at 1.00 p.m. According to the complainant, initially though the accused Zinta agreed to sanction the map, but later he pointed out that her map was different from the map earlier provided and, therefore, he could not sanction the map. 4. It is not disputed that w.e.f. 1st September, 2006, the authority of SADA was to cease and the area in question was to be merged in the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The complainant then requested the accused Zinta time and again to sanction her map, otherwise she would have to face difficulty with the Municipal Corporation. He told her that she would have to get a new map prepared and asked her to bring the same latest by 10.00 a.m. next morning. The complainant went back to her office and again contacted Shri Zinta on telephone and he asked her to again meet him in the office at about 6.00 p.m. When the complainant went to the office of Shri Zinta in the evening, again the accused asked her to produce a fresh map by the next morning and when the complainant expressed her inability to do so, Shri Zinta told her that if she spent some -: 4 :- money, he could contact one Prem Lal, a technical person (co- accused), who could get the map prepared within a day. Shri Praveen Zinta then asked the complainant to contact one Sandeep, who had the telephone number of co-accused Prem Lal. The complainant, thereafter, contacted Shri Prem lal, who demanded a sum of ` 7,000/- for preparation of the map and also assured the complainant that he would get the same sanctioned. When she was talking to Prem Lal, Praveen Zinta also came into the room. The complainant stated that the amount being asked was very high and after negotiations, the same was reduced to ` 6500/-. According to the complainant, she was told that the sanction letter would be given to her by Prem Lal. 5. Next day, i.e. on 1st September, the complainant went to the office of Vigilance Police at Khalini and talked to Dy.S.P. She lodged the report Ex. PA. She also provided thirteen currency notes of ` 500/- denomination each, whose numbers were noted down in the presence of the Naib Tehsildar Basant Singh. These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and demonstration of use of the powder was given. Shri Hariman, peon of the complainant, was asked to be the shadow witness and he was directed to give a signal by placing his hands on his head when the complainant made the payment of the money to Prem Lal. 6. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith her peon, Hariman, and one Sarita went to SDA Complex. She was -: 5 :- contacted by Prem Lal, who told her to meet her near Krol Cafe. He also told the complainant that he would be wearing black pants with black check shirt. The complainant alongwith accused Prem Lal went into Krol Cafe where constable Sarita was also sitting. They ordered tea and when Prem Lal demanded the money, the complainant handed over the treated notes to him. Prem Lal put the notes in his pocket and then Hariman gave a signal to the police. The police officials immediately came inside and overpowered Prem Lal. He was taken outside where his hands were washed. Then the hand washed solution was treated with Sodium Carbonate upon which the hand washed solution turned pink. The numbers of the currency notes were also tallied with the memo and the hand wash, currency notes etc. were sealed. 7. The complainant admitted that she had booked the house in the year 1989 and had taken possession of the same in 1998. In July, 2004, she had applied for regularization of the house under the retention policy, since, there was some unauthorized construction. She also admitted that when she had earlier filed a case for retention, the matter was closed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, since she had not removed the objections raised by the department. She again applied for re- opening of her case on 27.07.2005. She admits that on 30.07.2005, she was issued a letter that she should deposit a sum of ` 13,000/- and should demolish the structure constructed -: 6 :- in excess of her plot area. She also admits that she did not demolish the structure and on 17.12.2005, was given a fresh notice to demolish the same. According to her, thereafter she paid a sum of ` 13,000/- and submitted photograph showing that she had demolished the offending structure. She also admits that she had given an application to the Housing Board for allotment of additional land adjoining to her house and vide Ex. DC 1, 2.68 sq. mts. of excess land was allotted to her and lease deed was executed on 09.01.2006. She admits that after this additional land was leased to her, she never submitted any revised plan to SADA. The suggestion put to her by the accused is that they were trying to help her and since she required a fresh plan showing the 2.68 sq. mts. of land purchased by her later, accused Praveen Zinta arranged to get the revised plan prepared from accused Prem Lal and the amount demanded was for preparation of the plan and not a bribe to get the plan sanctioned. 8. It is important to note that the complainant is a senior Law Officer. She is not an illiterate person. She knows the law. In the initial complaint, Ex. PA, it is not mentioned that accused Praveen Zinta had told her that sanction letter would be provided to her by accused Prem Lal. Even otherwise, it is extremely difficult to believe that a senior Law Officer could believe that a Junior Engineer or a person not even employed in SADA could sanction the plan in her favour. The complainant -: 7 :- tried to improve her version by stating that no fresh map was to be prepared, but only a line was to be added in the old map. This is not recorded in the complaint, Ex. PA, or in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 9. She had made various other improvements. In court, she stated that accused Praveen Zinta told her that her map has been lost, but this was not stated by her in the complaint. In fact, when a suggestion was put to her that Prem Lal had demanded the money only for preparation of the map, she stated that she did not know whether accused Prem Lal was to prepare the map only for which money was demanded and volunteered that she was only concerned with her sanction letter. She also admits that the sanction letter was to be issued by the Member Secretary of SADA and not by any of the accused. 10. PW-2, Hariman, was the shadow witness and according to him, the accused Prem Lal asked for ` 7,000/- for preparation of map and for getting the same approved. In cross- examination, he stated that accused had demanded money for the copy of the map. Then stated that it was for the approval of the map. He then stated that he had not heard the entire talk and the talk was about preparation of the copy of the map. It is not relevant to discuss a lot of evidence, since the accused do not deny that Prem Lal did receive the money, i.e. ` 6500/-. -: 8 :- 11. PW-4, Ms. Shushma Sharma is a clerk in the office of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. She was earlier in the SADA. According to her, on 01.09.2006, accused Praveen Zinta produced the case file of complainant, Vandana Thakur. She has proved the file relating to the complainant Vandana Thakur. It is important to notice that as per the noting portion on the file after the matter was closed in 2005 and compounding fees paid on 10.08.2005, reminders were issued to the complainant, Vandana Thakur, to demolish the portion of the building constructed beyond her own land. After she again applied for re-opening of the matter on 23.08.2006, accused Praveen Zinta made a note that the file be put up alongwith the sanction letter and thereafter, the sanction letter was prepared by PW-4. This sanction letter was finally to be signed by the Member Secretary or the Planning Officer. 12. The case of the accused is that the sanction could not be obtained since the complainant had to provide a fresh map, in which the area which had been leased out to her after the matter was initially closed, was also to be reflected. PW-4, Shushma Sharma, has also clearly stated that accused Praveen Zinta had told her that a revised plan was required, but he had also asked her to prepare the sanction letter. 13. PW-10, Shri Rajinder Singh, was directed to assist the Town Planner-cum-Member Secretary, TCP in the year 2006-07. He stated that on 23.08.2006, notification regarding -: 9 :- merger of SADA with Municipal Corporation Shimla had been issued. He has clearly stated that the ultimate authority for sanction of the map is Member Secretary, who sanctions it after approval of the Chairman and that the Junior Engineer had no role in according the sanction. He also clearly stated that during the process of sanction, when a party is granted additional land, revised map showing the additional land, had to be submitted for sanction. 14. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the house of the complainant, which was in SADA area, was to fall within the Municipal Corporation area w.e.f. 01.09.2006. The complainant appears to be in hurry to get her matter settled before the land vested in the Municipal Corporation. Her own statement is that she had been meeting accused Praveen Zinta time and again and according to her, the first time money was demanded, that too by Prem Lal, was on 31.08.2006. The file shows that on 23.08.2006, Praveen Zinta had already put up a note that sanction letter be put up. This was after the notification had been issued, which indicated that the property would vest in the Municipal Corporation w.e.f. 01.09.2006. 15. Even as per the version of the complainant, Praveen Zinta never demanded any money from her. He time and again directed her to get a fresh map prepared and as is apparent from the statement of PW-10, once the complainant was granted -: 10 :- additional land, her revised plan could only be approved when the additional land was reflected in the plan submitted by her. 16. It appears to me that the only role of accused Praveen Zinta was to introduce the complainant with co-accused Prem Lal. He, in fact, did not even have the number of Prem Lal and even as per the complainant, she got his number from some other official. It was Prem Lal, who asked her to give a sum of ` 7,000/-. Admittedly, a map had to be prepared and it appears that Prem Lal, realizing the short time in which the complainant required the map, and taking advantage of this fact, demanded an amount of ` 7,000/-. 17. Whether demand for this amount was justified or not would not mean that there is any corruption involved. Prem Lal was not even an employee of the SADA. How could the complainant, who is a senior Law Officer, believe that a Junior Engineer or a person totally unconnected with the department, could have got the plan sanctioned in her favour. It is impossible to believe this version of the complainant. 18. The learned trial Court convicted the accused on surmises and conjectures, totally believing the version of the complainant. Her version that the two accused, one a Junior Engineer and one a person, not even working in the SADA, had assured her that they would get the map approved, cannot be believed. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of -: 11 :- the learned trial Court is set aside and the accused are acquitted. Bail bonds discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 19, 2011 (rajni)