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) 2to 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