JUDGMENT
K.C. Gupta, J.
1. This appeal has been directed by Raj Kumar,
accused, against the judgment and order dated 17.4.2002
passed by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby he was
found guilty and convicted under Section 7 read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of
Rs. 200/- under Section 7 of the Act; in default of
payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I.
for one month; to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine
of Rs. 300/- under Section 13(2) of the abovesaid Act and
and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was
further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month.
However, both the substantive sentenced were ordered to
run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on
10.7.1996, Labh Singh son of Kirpal Singh, resident of
Village Bibipur filed an application before the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib. He stated in
that application that he was farmer by profession. On
6.7.1996, there was a dispute between his wife, Surjit
Kaur and Jatinder Kaur wife of Swaran Singh son of Sukhdev
Singh. Jatinder Kaur got herself admitted in Civil
Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, on account of receipt of
injuries. On 7.7.1998, he (Labh Singh) and his wife went
to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib to enquire about the
incident narrated by Jatinder Kaur. Raj Kumar, appellant
(accused) met them and told that in case they wanted to
involve the opposite party in some serious offence, then
they should pay him Rs. 9,000/- and would get the needful
done. Thereafter the appellant got tem introduced to
Dr. Jaswant Singh and the bargain was settled at Rs. 8500/-.
At the asking of the said doctor, the appellant inflicted
two injuries on the person of Surjit Kaur with a blade
i.e. on her left hand and left leg. Thereafter,
Dr. Jaswant Singh and Dr. Madan Singh got prepared
medico-legal report of Surjit Kaur.
3. Labh Singh, complainant, in his application
further stated that he had got prepared false medico-legal
report of his wife with regard to the injuries in order to
falsely implicate his brothers and he had committed a
blunder, so, the amount be got refunded to him. The said
application was marked to S.P. (Head Quarter). Labh
Singh also filed his affidavit, Ex. PD. S.P. (Head
Quarter) conducted the enquiry and submitted his report,
Ex.PJ, and he found the contents of the application moved
by Labh Singh to be correct. Consequently, a case under
Section 420, 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”) was registered against the appellant and the
doctors.
4. The appellant was apprehended and he was
interrogated on 13.7.1996 and in pursuance of his
disclosure statement, Rs. 1500/- were recovered from the
trunk kept at his residential house in a room. The same
were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH attested by
Tarlochan Singh, ASI, Des Raj and Head Constable Manjit
Singh on 13.7.1996. The statement of Labh Singh was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Ilaqa
Magistrate.
5. Later on Labh Singh filed an affidavit to the effect that he
did not pay any amount to Dr. Jaswant Singh and in fact, he
did not know him. So, the names of the doctors were shown
in Column No. 2.
6. After the completion of the investigation, the
challan was put up in the Court against the appellant.
7. Having made out a prima-facie case, the
appellant was charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
8. In order to prove the allegations, the
prosecution examined 12 witnesses.
9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence,
the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations of the
prosecution and pleaded false implication.
10. After hearing learned PP for the State and the
defence counsel, the learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh
Sahib, vide judgment dated 17.4.2002 found the appellant
guilty and convicted him under Section 7 read with Section
13(2) of the Act and sentenced vide order of even date as
stated in the earlier part of the judgment.
11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated
17.4.2002, the accused has filed the present appeal.
12. I have heard Shri Sandeep Majithia, Advocate,
counsel for the appellant, Ms. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, DAG,
Punjab, and carefully gone through the record.
13. PW-1 Labh Singh is the complaint in this
case. He has not supported the prosecution version. He
categorically stated that he did not know the appellant
but his wife knew him. He further stated that nobody had
demanded any amount from him and he did not withdraw any
amount from the bank. He further stated that he did not
pay any amount to the appellant. He further stated that
the appellant did not cause any injury to his wife. He
was declared hostile but the learned Public Prosecutor
could not get any benefit to the prosecution out of his
cross-examination. In cross-examination by the defence
counsel, he stated that he was made to sit in the police
for 12-13 days before he was produced before the
Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. Thus, according to the complainant he had neither
paid any amount to the appellant, nor, he had demanded any
amount.
14. It is the further case of the prosecution that
the appellant, on interrogation, had made disclosure
statement, Ex.PG, which was attested by PW-3 Manjit Singh,
Head Constable, PW-4 Kishore Chand, SP, IRB, Patiala, PW-5
Tarlochan Singh, Sub Inspector and PW-7 Des Raj and then
he led the police party to his house in Village Talian and
got recovered Rs. 1500/- from the trunk which was lying in
his house and the said currency notes were taken into possession
vide memo Ex.PH attested by Manjit Singh, Tarlochan Singh
and Des Raj. PW-7 Des Raj, the independent witness in
this case, has not supported the prosecution version. He
categorically stated that he did not know any person of
the name of Raj Kumar and the appellant did not make any
statement in his presence nor he got recovered Rs. 1500/-
in his presence. He further stated that his thumb
impressions were obtained by the police on some papers.
In the absence of independent evidence, the testimony of
police officials cannot be believed. Even if it is
presumed that from the statement of PW-3 Manjit Singh,
Head Constable, PW-4 Kishore Chand, SP, IRB, Patiala and
PW-5 Tarlochan Singh, Sub Inspector, it is proved that
Rs. 1500/- were recovered from the trunk of the appellant
placed in his residential room in pursuance of his
disclosure statement, then also it is not proved that this
amount, alongwith other amount, he had taken as bribe from
Labh Singh. PW-1 Labh Singh did not state that he had
paid any amount to the appellant. It is not the case that
the complainant had noted down the numbers of the notes
and the same allied with the numbers of 15 currency notes
recovered from the trunk of the appellant. The appellant
was employed as a Peon. There is nothing improbable in it
if the appellant had kept Rs. 1500/- at his house
because it is a very small amount and it cannot be said
that it is a bribe amount. It is further stated that
Rs. 7000/- were paid to the doctors. The Doctors have not
been examined to prove this fact that they had received
Rs. 7000/-. Smt. Surjit Kaur wife of Labh Singh has not
been examined to prove that the appellant had caused her
two injuries with a blade with a view to get the
medico-legal report to falsely implicate her opponents and
the appellant had done so by getting Rs. 8500/-. At the
cost of repetition. I may state that mere recovery of
Rs. 1500/- does not connect the appellant with the offence
under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act.
15. In view of the discussion above, I hold that
the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to
the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is
acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving
him benefit of doubt. His bail bonds are discharged.