Crl. Revision No.2211 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2211 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.09.2011 Sat Parkash ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL --- Present: Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 9.09.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar, dismissing the appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10/12.03.2009 passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 182 IPC. The facts and background of the case are that Ravinder Kumar Gupta, SDO, Bilaspur, was prosecuted for the offence under Section 7 read with section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein referred to as the Act), at the instance of Sat Parkash, Crl. Revision No.2211 of 2011 2 accused/petitioner in this case. During trial of Ravinder Kumar Gupta, in Sessions Case No.52 of 2001, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, two star witnesses namely the petitioner who was the complainant in that case and had appeared as PW 8 and Sukhdev Singh shadow witness, who appeared as PW 10, had resiled from their statements stating that Ravinder Kumar Gupta had not demanded any money from him nor he had paid any illegal gratification though he admitted his signatures on the application but he denied the contents thereof. As such the Special Judge vide his judgment dated 3.12.2002 had to acquit Ravinder Kumar Gupta. Consequently, Des Raj Inspector filed a calendara against the complainant of the said case, wherein the petitioner appeared and contested the notice of accusation. On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial court while observing that since Sat Parkash petitioner as well as shadow witness Sukhdev Singh had given false information, convicted and sentenced him accordingly. His appeal was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner while shifting the responsibility and concealing the fact that actually he had not resiled from the statement but since the prosecution failed to give proper evidence, therefore, he was acquitted, is without any merit. Sat Parkash, being the complainant in that case had set the law in motion informing the Vigilance Department to raid the accused so that he could be arrested red handed while accepting the bribe and it Crl. Revision No.2211 of 2011 3 was at his instance that money was recovered from Ravinder Kumar Gupta, but on his failure to support the prosecution case the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, the offence under section 182 IPC is proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. Since the petition under section 182 IPC is sort of complaint as forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, therefore provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) do not in any way stand in the maintainability of the complaint. It has become the fashion of the day that even educated people like the petitioner are making hey both ways. First of all, they cheat the Government by taking money for complaining of corruption, then at trial, they for ulterior motives change places. As such, the people go unpunished. In such cases, the technicalities, howsoever grave may be, should not stand in the way of the courts for bringing such culprits to the book. In the absence of evidence, the person against whom the petitioner had lodged complaint under section 7 read with section 13 of the Act, it is difficult to hold that he was corrupt, but the petitioner appears to be double corrupt, as such, he does not earn any sympathy on the quantum of sentence also. Dismissed in limine. (A.N.Jindal) 21.09.2011 Judge rp