9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 14-7-2017 - A Roy And A Mishra, JJ. JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, Leave granted. 2. The appellant, heir of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) has carried this appeal to this Court against the affirmation of his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), recorded at the first instance by the learned Special Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in his judgment and order dated 04.09.2009. Thereby the predecessor of the present appellant had been, as a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI consequence of his conviction, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment Date: 2017.07.14 16:37:08 IST Reason: for one year for the offence under Section 7 and to pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- therefor and further sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act along with fine of ₹ 2,000/- with related default sentence. 3. Though this verdict was challenged before the High Court by the original convict, he, during the pendency of the appeal expired, whereupon the present appellant got hersel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered the room, confronted the original accused with the demand and receipt of the currency notes whereupon, he took out the same from the card board box and handed over those to trap team. As the fingers of the original accused when dipped in the chemical compound prepared for the purpose indicated that he had handled the currency notes, the investigating party completed the formalities and after obtaining the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, lodged the prosecution against the original accused on obtaining the necessary sanction therefor. 7. In support of the charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act laid by the prosecution, which the original accused denied, it examined several witnesses including the complainant Sarabjit Singh (PW1), the shadow witness Inspector Satpal (PW2), Aman Kumar (PW3) and Paramjit Singh Khaira (PW5). In course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the original accused denied the correctness of the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. He categorically denied to have either made any demand for illegal gratification or having received any bribe from the complainant and alleged that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Trial Court. 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the evidence on record is visibly deficient to prove the demand, receipt and recovery of any amount of illegal gratification as alleged and thus as the indispensable ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged, have remained unproved, the conviction and sentence is patently untenable and if allowed to stand would result in gross travesty of justice. Without in any manner conceding to the charge of receipt or recovery of the amount of ₹ 2,000/- as per the prosecution case, it has been alleged that in absence of any proof of demand therefor, the same is wholly inconsequential qua the prescriptions of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. The prosecution having failed to establish any demand for bribe as alleged, no presumption under Section 20 of the Act is also available to further the charge, he urged. To buttress these pleas, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Another(2015) 10 SCC 152). 11. As against this, the learned Counsel for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now engaged the attention of this Court on umpteen occasions. In A. Subair vs. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587), this Court propounded that the prosecution in order to prove the charge under the above provisions has to establish by proper proof, the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and till that is accomplished, the accused should be considered to be innocent. Carrying this enunciation further, it was exposited in State of Kerala vs. C.P. Rao(2011) 6 SCC 450) that mere recovery by itself of the amount said to have been paid by way of illegal gratification would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained. 15. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), this Court took note of its verdict in B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P.6 underlining that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It was recounted as well that in the absence of any proof of dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him to participate in the investigation on payment of ₹ 3,000/-, which was accordingly paid. The witness alleged that the original accused made a further demand of ₹ 3,000/-, whereafter negotiation was scaled down to ₹ 2,000/-, 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 ₹ 2,000/- comprised of three notes of ₹ 500 and five notes of ₹ 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 ₹ 2,000/- as prepared to the original accused, who received the same and after counting the money kept in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation, 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 ₹ 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of ₹ 3,000/- as well as the demand of ₹ 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 transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
