Criminal Misc. No.90-MA of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.90-MA of 2008 Date of decision : 20.8.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Karan Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent, who was prosecuted by the State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana on a charge under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Karnal on a finding that evidence adduced by the prosecution was noticeably contradictory inter-se and it was also in evidence that first informant had a motive to falsely implicate the respondent/accused as the latter was responsible for launching of a case against a real brother of the former on a charge of theft of electrical energy. Qua the upholding of defence, learned trial Court recorded the following observations:- “The accused has proved in his defence that brother of the complainant namely Pala Ram was found committed the theft of electricity by the accused and he was fined for Criminal Misc. No.90-MA of 2008 -2- **** the said theft. Ex. DA is the document which proves that accused Karan Singh who was AFM alongwith Rup Lal AM found Pala Ram son of Chandgi Ram who is the brother of the complainant committing theft of electricity and he was directed to pay the penalty of Rs.4824/-. Ex. DB and Ex. DC are also the documents which prove that said Pala Ram was found committing the theft of electricity by direct supply and he deposited even a penalty amount of Rs.4824/-. Said theft of electricity was detected on 24.6.2003 whereas the case against the accused was made on 26.6.2003. Statement of Raj Pal, Ex. Sarpanch also proves that complainant and Pala Ram were residing together and even both of them had gone to the electricity department after the detection of the said theft case. So, it is proved that the complainant was having grudge in his mind against the accused. Since the accused had already made the theft case against the brother of the complainant and the relations between the complainant and the accused could not be cordial, so there was no reason for the accused to demand illegal gratification from the complainant or accept the same.” Qua the discrepancies, the following observations were made by the learned Trial Court in para 21 and 22 of the judgment:- “21. To prove the recovery of tainted money from the Criminal Misc. No.90-MA of 2008 -3- **** possession of the accused, the prosecution case rets on the statement of complainant Raja Ram, on the statement of Ram Kumar Kanungo and DSP Devinder Yadav. If the statement of Raja Ram is believed then as per his statement he handed over the bribe money of Rs.1000/- to the accused in his office when he was alone and the said money was recovered from the pants' pocket of the accused. As per the statement of Ram Kanungo, Raja ram and Raj Kumar both went inside and then the money was recovered from the pants' pocket of the accused when they all went inside the office. During the course of cross-examination he deposed that the accused was in the shop of a Cobbler. When the shadow witness gave signal to the police party and from there accused was brought to a cement shop where the recovery was effected. Thus, the statement of Kanungo in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination is contradictory and even his statement is contradictory to the statement of Raja Ram complainant regarding the place of recovery. As per the statement of DSP Devinder Yadav, shadow witness gave signal that Karan Singh is coming. Karan Singh came in the shop where they were sitting then search of Karan Singh was taken and from his pants' side pocket some currency notes of Rs.1000/- were recovered. So, as per the statement of Criminal Misc. No.90-MA of 2008 -4- **** complainant, recovery was effected in the office of the accused, as per statement of Kanungo the recovery was effected on the road where cobbler was sitting and as per the statement of IO the recovery was effected in a shop where accused had come. Thus, the statements of all the three prosecution witnesses are contradictory regarding the place of recovery. 22. As per the statement of complainant Raja Ram they reached at the office of electricity Jundla at 12.20 p.m. and they only took 15 minutes in the office of the accused and thereafter the police party left him and took the accused. As per the statement of DSP the complainant came to his office at 10/10/30 a.m. He approached the DC at 11 a.m. who was not available and they left the office at 1 p.m. Meaning thereby as per the statement of complainant the bribe money was paid at about 12.30 p.m. and as per statement of IO they left the office at 1 p.m. and before that he had already approached the DC at 11 a.m. But a close perusal of the endorsement of the IO Ex. PD/3 reveals that even the ruqqa was sent at 12.50 p.m. to the police station from the office of DSP. If the ruqqa was sent at 12.50 p.m. and then in no eventuality the IO could approach the DC at 11 a.m. Because as per prosecution version after sending the ruqqa the DC was approached and thereafter Gazetted Criminal Misc. No.90-MA of 2008 -5- **** officer Ram Kumar, Kanungo was associated. If the ruqqa was sent at 12.50 p.m. in that case in no eventuality the complainant could reach the office of the accused at 12.30 p.m., so this contradiction in the time clearly proves that the raid was not conducted in the manner alleged and the official witnesses have deposed false. As per the statement of Ram Kumar Kanungo, DSP came to his office at 11 a.m. but since the ruqqa was sent at 12.50 p.m., so in no eventuality Ram Kumar Kanungo could be approached at 11 a.m. Apart therefrom, it was noticed that no independent witness had been joined to corroborate the version of the complainant who had already been proved to have a motive to proceed against the respondent. Learned State counsel could not invite the attention of this court to any fact which may prove the falsity of the factual premise upon which the impugned finding of exoneration proceeds. In that view of things, I have no hesitation in holding that impugned finding is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. August 20, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No