Crl.Rev.No.1906 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1906 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.02.2009 Joginder ......Petitioner Versus Navdeep and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Navdeep Singh and Satnarain-respondent Nos.1 and 2 were tried for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in FIR No.51 dated 9.12.2002 registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 24.1.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rewari. 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:- “Succinctly narrated the prosecution case as culled out from the police report transmitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that on December 9, 2002, complainant Joginder Singh moved an application Crl.Rev.No.1906 of 2008 (O&M) 2 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, to the effect that electric connection has not been released to him although he has deposited security. He made earnest requests to the Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Gothra and he asked to pay Rs.30,000/- to Satnarain, Asstt. Foreman. He met Satnarain Asstt. Foreman and he also demanded Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter, accused Satnarain was trapped having accepted illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- by the raiding party under the stewardship of Dhan Singh, DSP.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with each other had demanded and received Rs.30,000/- as bribe money from the complainant. However, they had been acquitted by the trial Court on wrong assumptions. After going through the impugned judgment, it transpires that Roop Singh (PW-2), who was serving as Junior Engineer in the office of SDO, DHBVNL, Gothra Pali, was on casual leave from 3.12.2002 to 5.12.2002. He was on duty from 6.12.2002 to 18.12.2002. He was dealing with the files pertaining to the release of electric connections at the tubewells. When he proceeded on leave, he handed over such files to Satnarain-respondent No.2. The file of the complainant was complete in all respects and the same was also handed over along with other files to Satnarain-respondent Crl.Rev.No.1906 of 2008 (O&M) 3 No.2. From this, it is evident that on the day of raid i.e. 9.12.2002, respondent No.2 Satnarain was not dealing with the file in question as Roop Singh (PW-2), Junior Engineer, had returned back after availing casual leave up to 5.12.2002 and was, thereafter, to deal with the files. Complainant Joginder Singh had deposed that Navdeep Singh-respondent No.1 had raised a demand of Rs.30,000/- for release of electric connection and also directed him to hand over the said amount to Satnarain-respondent No.2. He (complainant) moved an application to Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance Camp at Rewari on 9.12.2002. Thereafter, a raid was conducted and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the inner pocket of the trouser of the accused (respondent No.2). When the trouser and hands of respondent No.2 were washed separately, the water became pink in colour. The complainant had admitted in his cross- examination that Roop Singh, Junior Engineer (PW-2) was responsible for preparing the estimate regarding release of electric connection at his tubewell. He had met Roop Singh (PW-2) for preparation of estimate just seven days earlier. Inspector Ramesh Kumar (PW-6) was joined as a shadow witness. Dalip Singh (PW-7) deposed that his son (complainant) had applied for release of electric connection at their tubewell. On 2.12.2002 he along with his son had visited the office of HSEB Gothra and met respondent No.1 Navdeep Singh, who had raised a Crl.Rev.No.1906 of 2008 (O&M) 4 demand of Rs.30,000/- and directed them to hand over the said amount to Satnarain, respondent No.2. M.P.Aggarwal (PW-8) retired Block Development and Panchayat Officer, who was joined as an independent witness deposed that he reached the office of HSEB Gothra Pali with the police officials in a Tata Sumo and was dropped on the way. After some time, some officials of Vigilance department brought respondent No.2 Satnarain from his room and an amount of Rs.30,000/- was recovered from the right pocket of his trouser. From the facts noticed above, it is evident that the file in question was not to be dealt with by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but was rather to be dealt with by Roop Singh (PW-2). On 2.12.2002, Roop Singh (PW-2) was not on leave and, as such, there was no occasion for the complainant or his father to meet respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to release of electric connection as the file was to be dealt with by Roop Singh (PW-2) and not by them. Similarly on the alleged day of occurrence Roop Singh (PW-2) had already joined back after availing casual leave on 6.12.2002. There was no occasion for the complainant to offer any bribe money to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the complainant was aware that the file was to be dealt with by Roop Singh (PW-2). It is not the case of the complainant that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had raised a demand on behalf of the concerned Junior Engineer i.e. Roop Singh (PW-2). In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charge framed against them. Crl.Rev.No.1906 of 2008 (O&M) 5 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. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE February 04, 2009 anita