Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 Date of decision: November 23, 2010 Ranbir Singh and another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PESENT: Mr Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for appellant-Ranbir Singh Mr Kamal Sharma, Advocate for near relative of deceased appellant-Randhir Singh Mr Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S.MANN, J. Vide judgment and order dated 3.3.1997, Special Judge, Jind, convicted the appellants under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. According to the prosecution, appellant Ranbir Singh was posted as Junior Engineer whereas appellant Randhir Singh as Lineman with Haryana State Electricity Board. On 18.12.1992, complainant Mohinder Singh submitted an affidavit Ex.PB before the Deputy Commissioner, Jind, stating therein that the appellants had demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration, for the release of tubewell Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -2- connection of Miyan Singh, Rs.2,000/- for the drinks party and Rs.200/- for the transfer of aforesaid tubewell connection in his name. Believing the contents of affidavit Ex.PB, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the same to Superintendent of Police, Jind on 18.12.1992, who in turn directed the SHO of the Police Station, Safidon to register a case against the appellants. On receipt of affidavit Ex.PB, Inspector Prem Singh Hooda, SHO Police Station, Safidon recorded formal FIR Ex.PB/1. Further case of the prosecution was that on 21.12.1992, DSP O.P Dogra took over investigation of the case. On 1.3.1993, appellant Ranbir Singh produced photo copy of E.M.B which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PN. On 3.3.1993 Raj Kumar, L.D.C. produced documents pertaining to the release of tubewell connection of complainant Mohinder Singh and Miyan Singh which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK. The DSP also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After retirement of the DSP, the investigation of the case remained hanging and the challan was not presented in the Court against the appellants. On the prayer made by the appellants in Crl. Misc. 18900-M of 1995 for quashing of the FIR, this Court vide order dated 9.11.1995 directed the Investigating Agency to conclude the investigation and submit the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On 24.11.1995 G.P.Mittal, Engineer-in-Chief, H.S.E.B. and S.S.Vaid, Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, H.S.E.B, Jind, accorded sanction to prosecute the appellants. On 25.11.1995 DSP Anil Yadav took over the investigation and recorded statements of S.S.Vaid, Superintending Engineer, Jind, Maman Singh, Patwari, Halqa Anchra Khurd and Miyan Singh r/o Anchra Khurd. Supplementary statement of complainant Mohinder Singh was also recorded by DSP and after collecting sanction orders Exs.PC and PD, DSP Anil Yadav presented the final Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -3- report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Upon appearance of the appellants, the trial Court framed charge under Section 13 of the Act against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. PW-1 Sandeep Dhillon, IAS, Managing Director, Haryana Tourism, Chandigarh testified that when he stood posted as Deputy Commissioner, Jind, the complainant had submitted an affidavit Ex.PB against the appellants for having demanded and accepted Rs.7,200/- as illegal gratification while releasing the tubewell connection of Miyan Singh in his favour. He forwarded the said affidavit to the Superintendent of Police, Jind for registration of the case. PW-2 G.P.Mittal, Engineer-in-Chief, H.S.E.B. deposed that on 24.11.1995 he accorded sanction to prosecute appellant Ranbir Singh. Similarly, PW-3 Raizada S.S.Vaid, Chief Engineer, Panchkula deposed that while he was posted as Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, H.S.E.B. Jind, he had accorded sanction to prosecute appellant Randhir Singh. PW-4 Mange Ram, Patwari deposed about the preparation of aks- sajra Ex.PE and jamabandi Ex.PF regarding the land owned by the complainant. PW-5 Maman Ram, Patwari deposed about the delivery of copy of aks-sajra of the land owned by Miyan Singh and preparation of mutation No.736 Ex.PH. PW-6 Zile Singh, U.D.C., S.D.O. Sub Division, Safidon proved the posting orders Exs.PI and PJ of the two appellants. PW-7 Raj Kumar, L.D.C., H.S.E.B, Sonepat deposed that appellant Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -4- Ranbir Singh had released tubewell connection in the name of Miyan Singh vide order No.75/2742. He identified signatures of both the appellants on it. He also deposed about furnishing of the report Ex.PL/1 by the appellants to the department and delivery of connection in favour of Miyan Singh. The site plan of the supply was Ex.PL/2. Vide order Ex.PL/3, the Executive Engineer had ordered for the permanent disconnection of electricity connection of Miyan Singh on 19.11.1992. He also placed on record original affidavit of Miyan Singh as Ex.PL/4, besides documents Exs PM, PM/1 to PM/21. PW-8 Miyan Singh deposed about giving of his tubewell connection to complainant Mohinder Singh by appellant Randhir Singh, Lineman. However, he pleaded ignorance about execution of the affidavit Ex.PL/4 in favour of the complainant. PW-9 Anil Yadav, DSP, Gurgaon deposed about the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation. PW-10 complainant Mohinder Singh reiterated the averments made by him in his affidavit Ex.PB. PW-11 Inspector Prem Singh Hooda, testified that on receipt of affidavit Ex.PB, he recorded formal FIR Ex.PB/1.He also witnessed the recovery memo Ex.PK vide which DSP Om Parkash took into possession photocopies of the documents pertaining to the electricity connection of Miyan Singh and the complainant. PW-12 O.P.Dogra, Retd.D.S.P. stated about the steps taken by him during investigation of the case. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution. In defence, only appellant Ranbir Singh examined Sunehra as DW-1. Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -5- After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the file, the trial Court held that both the appellants were in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration, after preparing wrong record in the form of documents and knowing fully well that they were giving shape to their illegal acts in an illegal manner and, thus, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. I had heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the evidence with their able assistance. According to PW-10 Mohinder Singh, he wanted to have an electricity connection of tubewell in his fields and, therefore, met Randhir Singh, Lineman, who demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for giving connection and installing the same. He was then taken to Ranbir Singh, J.E., who demanded Rs.5,000/- for himself and for Ranbir Singh for releasing the connection of Miyan Singh in his favour. As the witness had sold his diesel engine, he gave the amount of Rs.5,000/- to Randhir Singh, Lineman on the asking of Ranbir Singh J.E., who was also present there. They had also made him spend Rs.2,000/- on the drinks party. The connection was released in his favour in February 1992. Randhir Singh, Lineman brought the electricity consumption bill for the month of January 1992 and told the witness to deposit the same. When the witness refused to pay the said bill, the Lineman asked him to accompany him to the Junior Engineer. When he, alongwith the Lineman, went to the Junior Engineer, he deposited the said bill for the months of January and February 1992, when asked to do so by the Junior Engineer. He was assured that on depositing the bill for the months of January and February, 1992, the tubebell connection would be transferred in his name. It was on this assurance that he deposited the bill for the aforementioned two months. At that Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -6- time, the Lineman asked the witness to pay another sum of Rs.200/- for the transfer of the tubewell connection, which he paid, besides Rs.220/- as security for which he gave him receipt. Still, tubewell connection was not transferred in his name. In the month of November, 1992, the tubewell connection was disconnected under the orders of the Executive Engineer. The witness then went to the Lineman, who took him to the Junior Engineer. The witness protested to both of them in regard to the disconnection of the tubewell connection and demanded his money back. When they refused to refund the amount, he submitted complaint in the form of affidavit Ex.PB to the Deputy Commissioner. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had given the amount of Rs.5,000/- to the accused in the presence of Mahan Singh son of Lakhi Ram r/o Anchra Khurd. Though he had not stated the said fact in his affidavit, yet when his supplementary statement was recorded by Superintendent of Police, he had stated so. The Superintendent of Police also recorded the statement of Mahan Singh son of Lakhi Ram in his office at Jind. The statements of both of them were recorded by some official from the office of Superintendent of Police, Jind and their statements, thereafter, produced before SSP, Jind, for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellants. Aforementioned Mahan Singh in whose presence PW-10 Mohinder Singh had handed over illegal gratification to the appellants has not been examined by the prosecution. There is, thus, no corroboration to the sole testimony of PW-10 Mohinder Singh. According to PW-10 Mohinder Singh, he wanted tubewell connection released in favour of Miyan Singh out of turn so that lateron he could get it transferred in his own name. However, PW-8 Miyan Singh deposed that he had not given any application for the release of tubewell Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -7- connection in the office of Electricity Board at Safidon. He had also not applied for tubewell connection in favour of complainant Mohinder Singh nor he had furnished any affidavit to the said effect. He did state that he had deposited security for the tubewell connection in the year 1986 but never agreed for the transfer of his connection in favour of complainant Mohinder Singh. He lateron learnt from the village that his tubewell connection was given to Mohinder Singh by the Lineman but he himself had no knowledge about the same. When PW-8 Miyan Singh had not consented to the transfer of his tubewell connection, which was likely to be allotted in the near feature, PW-10 Mohinder Singh could not have validly staked any claim for its transfer in his own name after getting the connection released out of turn in favour of Miyan Singh. Apparently, it was PW-10 Mohinder Singh, who on his own had been instrumental in getting electricity connection released out of turn in the name of Miyan Singh and, thereafter, seeking its transfer in his own name. It was only when the Executive Engineer ordered for disconnection of the electricity connection that he came up with the false claim that the appellants had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from him for releasing the connection in the name of Miyan Singh and, thereafter, transferring the same in his own name. Moreover, according to PW-7 Raj Kumar, L.D.C., the Junior Engineer had released the connection in the name of Miyan Singh on 21.1.1992 vide order No.75/2742 which bore the signatures of the Junior Engineer and the Lineman. Similarly, according to PW-10 Mohinder Singh by the end of February 1992, the electricity connection stood released in his name. If that was so then there was no occasion for the appellants to have collected another amount of Rs.200/- from him for the purpose of transferring of tubewell connection in his name. Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -8- PW-10 Mohinder Singh during his cross-examination stated that the State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, had conducted an enquiry in respect of his complaint and his statement was recorded. He further testified that he had not filed any complaint to the higher authorities against the police prior to the submission of affidavit Ex.PB before the Deputy Commissioner. He admitted that the enquiry was conducted by Sub Divisional Officer, Haryana State Electricity Board, Safidon regarding release of tubewell connection of Miyan Singh in his favour and only, thereafter, the tubewell connection of Miyan Singh which stood released in his favour was disconnected. Though he denied the suggestion that after the enquiry, Sub Divisional Officer had concluded that the appellants were innocent and it was he, who had played fraud with the department and prepared forged documents, yet the fact remains that the tubewell connection was disconnected and in fact, the Sub Divisional Officer had recommended for registration of the case against him. Apparently, in order to wriggle out of the situation created by himself that PW-10 Mohinder Singh came up with his affidavit Ex.PB which he presented before the Deputy Commissioner. If the appellants had received illegal gratification from him then he should not have waited till 21.12.1992 when he submitted his affidavit before the Deputy Commissioner. His not approaching the police or the Vigilance for a long period of time after giving illegal gratification to the appellants points to the one and only conclusion that he had, at no stage given any illegal gratification to the appellants and only when his tubewell connection was disconnected and proceedings sought to be initiated against him and submitting forged documents for the purpose of obtaining tubewell connection that he came up with the belated version by submitting his affidavit Ex.PB. Clr. Appeal No.177-SB of 1997 -9- In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and the appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. Ranbir Singh-appellant is on bail. His bail and surety bonds stand discharged. (T.P.S.MANN) November 23, 2010 JUDGE pds. Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2013.09.02 11:09 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh