Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.3.2009 Yogesh Bhardwaj ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Chandi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Ram Phal-respondent Nos. 2 was tried for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in FIR No.29 dated 20.5.2006 registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. However, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Gurgaon. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.1 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The case of the prosecution as unfolded during trial is that on the complaint of one Suman Lata, a case under Sections 509 and 506 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the complainant Yogesh Bhardwaj by the police of Police Station Pataudi against FIR No.21 dated 7.2.2006. Said case was being investigated by the Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 2 accused who was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector/Incharge Police Post Haily Mandi under the jurisdiction of Police Station Pataudi. The complainant applied for anticipatory bail which was declined by Sh.V.P.Gupta then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He then approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for the same relief. He was allowed interim anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.2.2008 subject to the condition that he shall join the investigation. Said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 25.4.2006. Thereafter, the complainant applied for regular bail which was allowed by then learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurgaon vide order dated 8.5.2006. Further case of the prosecution is that complainant visited the police station number of times to join the investigation, but the accused did not join him in the investigation. Rather, the accused obtained from him Rs.22,000/- as bribe and demanded Rs.2,000/- more to join him in the investigation. He reported the matter to the Vigilance Department by presenting an application Ex.PC before Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. Said application was assigned to Jagdish Parshad Inspector by the Superintendent of Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 3 Police to do the needful. Inspector made an endorsement Ex.PC/1 on said application and sent the same to police station State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon through constable Virender Singh for registration of a case. On the basis of that FIR Ex.PD was drawn by Rohtash Singh Inspector. Jagdish Parshad Inspector constituted a raiding party to lay a trap to nab the accused red handed while accepting bribe from the complainant. He accompanied by the complainant and other members of the raiding party went to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and presented an application Ex.PP/1 with request to depute a Gazetted Officer to join the raid. Deputy Commissioner vide his endorsement Ex.PP on said application deputed District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO) Gurgaon for the job. Raiding party then went to the office of DDPO Gurgaon. Rao Dharampal Singh was DDPO. He was joined in the raiding party. The complainant then handed over four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each i.e. Rs.2,000/- to the Inspector. Inspector and DDPO put their initials on each note and treated them with Phenolphthalein powder. Those tainted notes were then Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 4 handed over the same to the accused on demand and to give a signal to the shadow witness after passing of the money by him to the accused. Ram Singh ASI was deputed as a shadow witness with a direction to accompany the complainant to the office of the accused and to pass on the signal to the raiding party after passing of the money by the complainant to the accused. The raiding party reached the police post Haily Mandi. The complainant and the shadow witness went inside the police post, whereas, remaining members of the raiding party stood outside in the wait of signal from shadow witness. The complainant handed over the tainted notes to the accused on demand. The accused placed three currency notes on his table under a paper and returned one currency note to the complainant saying that Rs.1,500/- were sufficient to do the job. After passing of the money, the complainant made the appointed signal to the shadow witness. Shadow witness passed on the signal to the waiting party. The waiting party entered the police post and nabbed the accused. All the three currency/tainted notes were recovered lying on his table. Thereafter, the hands of the accused, those of the complainant, tainted notes and the table cloth from Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 5 which tainted notes were recovered were got washed separately in a solution of Sodium Carbonate. The colour of the solution on each wash, turned slightly pink. All the three wash were put into nips and were taken into possession vide memos Ex.P1, EX.PL and Ex.PN after converting into separate sealed parcels along with tainted notes and table cloth, which too were converted into separate sealed parcels. One tainted note which was returned by the accused to the complainant was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM after converting into a sealed parcel. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was taken to Civil Hospital Gurgaon for medico legal examination. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused to stand trial for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Raid was organised on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner- complainant. The bribe money was recovered from respondent No.2 and when his hands were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the same had turned pink, which showed that respondent No.2 had handled the currency notes. Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 6 As per the prosecution case, respondent No.2 had raised a demand of Rs.2,000/- from the petitioner to enable the petitioner to join investigation in a case registered against him under Section 506 read with Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. Raid was organised on 20.5.2006 by the Vigilance department. As per the complainant Rs.2,000/- had been demanded by respondent No.2 as bribe money, whereas, Rs.1,500/- were recovered from the table of respondent No.2 lying under the table cloth. Learned Special Judge, has observed that there was no significant explanation regarding recovery of Rs.1,500/- from the table of the accused, whereas, the allegations were that there was a demand of Rs.2,000/- by respondent No.2 as bribe money. Learned Special Judge has further noticed that the prosecution story is doubtful as the petitioner had got registered FIR No.8 dated 16.1.2007 under Sections 457, 506 and 120-B IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. After investigation, the allegations mentioned in the FIR were found to be false and the cancellation report was submitted. In these circumstances, the learned Special Judge has observed that since an FIR was registered against respondent No.2 by the petitioner, then it was difficult to believe that respondent No.2 would have demanded and accepted bribe from the petitioner as their relations were already bitter. Learned Special Judge has further observed that the petitioner was allowed to join investigation by respondent No.2 on Crl.Rev.No.2734 of 2008 7 29.2.2006 in terms of the order of this Court and the said interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner was confirmed vide order dated 25.4.2006. On 8.5.2006 the petitioner was allowed regular bail by the learned Magistrate. In such a situation, there was no occasion for respondent No.2 to demand bribe from the petitioner on 20.5.2006 to enable the petitioner to join investigation. The said reasons given by the learned Special Judge, while acquitting respondent No.2 of the charge framed against him, are sound reasons and call for no interference. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in revision, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 31, 2009 anita