Case: Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) Through His L.R Vs. State of Punjab

the money, on which, the latter handed over three currency notes denomination of Rs. 500 and five currency notes of Rs. 100 each to him and that he kept the same in a card board box lying near him. The witness stated that he then gave a signal to the other members of the raiding party including the D.S.P. (Vigilance) who entered the room and undertook the steps pertaining to recovery and seizure as narrated by the complainant.21. In cross-examination, this witness did not refer to the quarter of the original accused in the building of the police station and stated that both he and the complainant met him in his room in the police station. He however confirmed that the card board box was lying on the table of the accused which was not seized by the police. He denied the suggestion that he was not a member of the raiding party and that he had signed the memo while sitting in his office.22. Aman Kumar Mani (PW3) is a witness to the steps taken by the raiding party after it had entered the room in response to the signal given by the shadow witness. According to him, on being enquired, the original accused took out the currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- from the box lying in his room and that the same tallied with those set out in the memo prepared by the police. He proved as well the currency notes as Ex.P1 to P8.23. Superintendent of Police, Paramjit Singh Khaira (PW5), deposed that he was posted as DSP (Vigilance) FS-I, Unit-2, Punjab, Chandigarh on 01.06.2005. He stated that on that day, he recorded the statement of the complainant pertaining to the demand of illegal gratification made by the original accused. He thereafter constituted a trap team as above and treated currency notes totalling Rs. 2,000/- for the exercise and led the party to the Ajnala Police Station. The witness affirmed that Inspector Satpal was nominated as the shadow witness to accompany the complainant to witness the actual transaction and track the accompanying conversation and to give signal to the trap team at the appropriate point of time. This witness however stated in categorical terms that the complainant and the shadow witness went to the house of the original accused whereas the other members of the trap team waited outside and when Inspector Satpal flagged his signal, the house of the accused situated near Ajnala Police Station was raided. He stated that the police party intercepted the accused and on being asked, he took out the currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- from the card board box placed on the nearby table which tallied with those mentioned in the pre-trap, prepared memo and seized the currency notes. That the fingers of the original accused were dipped in the liquid compound, which turned pink was also stated.24. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Mr. Mukhwinder Singh Cheena was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police, Mohali and that he was his in-charge, then. To the suggestions made, the witness stated that he had no knowledge that the complainant was related to Mukhwinder Singh Cheena and that the latter had been pressurising the original accused not to pursue the case against the complainant. He also denied the suggestion that the Mr. Cheena was the brain behind the raid and the registration of the case against the original accused.25. It would thus be patent from the materials on record that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of Rs. 3,000/- which had been paid or of Rs. 2,000/- as made on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with the pre-requisites to constitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged. Not only the date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs. 3,000/- at the first instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lamberdar, has neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of Rs. 3,000/- as well as the demand of Rs. 2,000/- has remained uncorroborated. Further to reiterate, his statement to this effect lacks in material facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation of a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement of complainant and the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act.26. In addition thereto, not only the prosecution version of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in the police station seems to be unusual, contradictions of the witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 with regard to the location of the transaction relating to Rs. 2,000/- also renders it doubtful. It is also noticeably unusual that the currency notes when allegedly handed over by the complainant to the original accused, the same instead of being keenly kept with him, were placed casually in the card board box placed on his table. Though the original accused, apart from imputing his false implication at the instance of Superintendent of Police Cheena, said to be the relative of the complainant could not adduce any evidence to consolidate the same, the fact remains that this officer at the relevant point of time was indeed Superintendent of Police at Mohali and was the superior of PW5 who led the trap operation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. The textual facts in Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel (supra) and Mukhtiar Singh (supra) and the quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution are clearly distinguishable and are thus of no avail to the prosecution as would be discernible from the analysis of the materials on record.17. It is in the above adumbrated legal enjoinment, that the evidence on record has to be scrutinised. Having regard to the gravamen of the charge and the imperatives of demand of illegal gratification, the receipt and recovery thereof, the evidence on record relatable thereto only need be noticed.18. Sarabjit Singh (PW1), the complainant stated that on 01.06.2005, he was posted with Traffic Police at Moga and that at the instance of his wife, a case under Section 498A IPC had been registered against him in Ajnala Police Station. He stated that the original accused, who was aof Ajnala Police Station was conducting the investigation of the case, agreed to allow him to participate in the investigation on payment of Rs.which was accordingly paid. The witness alleged that the original accused made a further demand of Rs.whereafter negotiation was scaled down to Rs.so as to favour the complainant in the case, with the threat that if the demand was not met, he would see that he is harassed in connection therewith. According to this witness, he being disinclined to advance further illegal gratification, lodged a complaint with DSP Paramjit Singh Khaira, who recorded his statement and requisitioned from him currency notes of Rs. 2,000/comprised of three notes of Rs. 500 and five notes of Rs. 100 each, treated those with phenolphthalein powder and constituted a trap team with Inspector Satpal as shadow witness and Aman Kumar Mani and Shashi Kant. The witness further stated that the police party thereafter visited Ajnala Police Station and he and Inspector Satpal met the original accused in his room and on being asked as to whether the money had been brought or not, he handed over Rs. 2,000/as prepared to the original accused, who received the same and after counting the money kept in a card board box. At this, the shadow witness signalled the waiting members of the raiding party along with the DSP Paramjit Singh Khaira, who entered the room, intercepted the original accused and recovered the currency notes on being handed over by him on demand. The witness also stated about the exercise undertaken by dipping the hands of the original accused in the liquid compound prepared, which turned pink to indicate that he had handled the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein. The witness also proved the currency notes as Ex. P1 to P8.19. In histhe complainant admitted that M.S. Cheena, the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance was posted as S.S.P, Moga but denied that he was related to him. He could not recall the date on which he had paid Rs. 3,000/for the first time to the original accused and admitted of not having made any complaint in connection therewith. He conceded that one Santosh Singh Lamberdar of his village was with him when he paid this amount but the said person had not been produced as a witness either in the investigation or at the trial. He admitted as well that the card board box containing the money was not seized. He however denied the suggestion that he had been pressurising the original accused to conclude the investigation in his favour and that he had implicated him falsely. He also denied the suggestion that there was neither any demand for illegal gratification by the accused nor was any sum as alleged accepted by or recovered from him.20. Inspector Satpal (PW2), who was the shadow witness, after reiterating the statement of the complainant with regard to theproceedings, stated that he along with the complainant on that day met the original accused and followed to his quarter in the building of the police station whereafter the original accused enquired of the complainant as to whether he had brought the money, on which, the latter handed over three currency notes denomination of Rs. 500 and five currency notes of Rs. 100 each to him and that he kept the same in a card board box lying near him. The witness stated that he then gave a signal to the other members of the raiding party including the D.S.P. (Vigilance) who entered the room and undertook the steps pertaining to recovery and seizure as narrated by the complainant.21. Inthis witness did not refer to the quarter of the original accused in the building of the police station and stated that both he and the complainant met him in his room in the police station. He however confirmed that the card board box was lying on the table of the accused which was not seized by the police. He denied the suggestion that he was not a member of the raiding party and that he had signed the memo while sitting in his office.22. Aman Kumar Mani (PW3) is a witness to the steps taken by the raiding party after it had entered the room in response to the signal given by the shadow witness. According to him, on being enquired, the original accused took out the currency notes of Rs. 2,000/from the box lying in his room and that the same tallied with those set out in the memo prepared by the police. He proved as well the currency notes as Ex.P1 to P8.23. Superintendent of Police, Paramjit Singh Khaira (PW5), deposed that he was posted as DSP (Vigilance), Punjab, Chandigarh on 01.06.2005. He stated that on that day, he recorded the statement of the complainant pertaining to the demand of illegal gratification made by the original accused. He thereafter constituted a trap team as above and treated currency notes totalling Rs. 2,000/for the exercise and led the party to the Ajnala Police Station. The witness affirmed that Inspector Satpal was nominated as the shadow witness to accompany the complainant to witness the actual transaction and track the accompanying conversation and to give signal to the trap team at the appropriate point of time. This witness however stated in categorical terms that the complainant and the shadow witness went to the house of the original accused whereas the other members of the trap team waited outside and when Inspector Satpal flagged his signal, the house of the accused situated near Ajnala Police Station was raided. He stated that the police party intercepted the accused and on being asked, he took out the currency notes of Rs. 2,000/from the card board box placed on the nearby table which tallied with those mentioned in theprepared memo and seized the currency notes. That the fingers of the original accused were dipped in the liquid compound, which turned pink was also stated.24. Inthis witness admitted that Mr. Mukhwinder Singh Cheena was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police, Mohali and that he was histhen. To the suggestions made, the witness stated that he had no knowledge that the complainant was related to Mukhwinder Singh Cheena and that the latter had been pressurising the original accused not to pursue the case against the complainant. He also denied the suggestion that the Mr. Cheena was the brain behind the raid and the registration of the case against the original accused.25. It would thus be patent from the materials on record that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of Rs. 3,000/which had been paid or of Rs. 2,000/as made on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with theto constitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged. Not only the date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs. 3,000/at the first instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lamberdar, has neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of Rs. 3,000/as well as the demand of Rs. 2,000/has remained uncorroborated. Further to reiterate, his statement to this effect lacks in material facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation of a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement of complainant and the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act.26. In addition thereto, not only the prosecution version of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in the police station seems to be unusual, contradictions of the witnesses,with regard to the location of the transaction relating to Rs. 2,000/also renders it doubtful. It is also noticeably unusual that the currency notes when allegedly handed over by the complainant to the original accused, the same instead of being keenly kept with him, were placed casually in the card board box placed on his table. Though the original accused, apart from imputing his false implication at the instance of Superintendent of Police Cheena, said to be the relative of the complainant could not adduce any evidence to consolidate the same, the fact remains that this officer at the relevant point of time was indeed Superintendent of Police at Mohali and was the superior of PW5 who led the trap operation.