JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The appellant Lajpat Rai, who was working as a
Patwari, in the revenue circle of Jhotiwala was convicted
by the learned Special Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment
dated 7.6.1990 as he was found guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the Act,
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 1.5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two months. Challenge in the present appeal is to the
conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant-accused.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, Jit Singh
PW 1 is resident of village Burj Masta. He and his other
three brothers had purchased the land measuring about 15
kanals 18 marlas in 1982. They also purchased land
measuring 4 kanals 17 marlas for a consideration of
Rs. 14,000/- from Arjan Singh son of Narain Singh and
Jaswinder Singh son of Jalaur Singh. The mutations had
not been sanctioned in respect of the two purchases. The
complainant went to the Patwari who in turn demanded a sum
of Rs. 500/- but agreed to accent Rs. 300/- from them for
entering the mutations. This was demanded on 10.4.1989.
The amount was demanded as illegal gratification, which
was promised to pay by the complainant. The complainant
along with Babu Singh PW went to the office of the
Vigilance Bureau at Faridkot, Gurbachan Singh, Inspector
met him in the office. Statement of complainant was
recorded. Then Jit Singh produced three currency notes of
Rs. 100/- each. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the
notes and no other material was permitted to remain with
Jit Singh. These notes were handed over to Jit Singh. A
demonstration regarding the solution of powder was also
done. A scheme was prepared, according to which after
reaching near the vegetable shops, Jit Singh was to go
ahead and on demand by the accused, was to make the
requisite payment. According to the scheme Jit Singh PW1
paid a sum of Rs. 300/- to the accused and thereafter
agreed signal was given by Babu Singh. The Inspector
along with the members of the raiding party reached the
roof. Accused came out from the Chaubara. The Inspector
disclosed his identity. Then glass of water was taken and
sodium carbonate was put into the same. Hands of the
accused were got washed in the said solution. The colour
of the solution changed to pink. Then solution was put
into a nip and was duly sealed and taken into possession.
Before conducting the raid, Gurcharan Singh, Clerk, Office
of the S.D.O.Drainage, Faridkot was also joined. He was
introduced to the witnesses and scheme was told to him.
Recovery of three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each was
effected. Numbers of the notes were tallied and
ultimately challan was filed along with relevant
documents. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and
the opinion given by the expert were filed with the
challan.
3. A charge under Section 13(2) of the Act was
framed on 27.9.1989. The appellant-accused did not plead
guilty and was subjected to trial. After the prosecution
evidence was concluded, the statement of the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded not
guilty as well as stated that he has been falsely
implicated in the case. As already noticed, the learned
Special Judge, found the appellant guilty of the offence
and convicted him by awarding the afore-mentioned sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has
mainly thrust on two submissions, firstly that there are
serious contradictions in the statements of the material
witnesses and secondly that PW 1 is not a reliable witness
inasmuch as he has, on oath, stated falsehood which is
confirmed by the statement of PW 2 itself. Lastly, it was
submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.
5. PW 1 Jit Singh complainant was asked a simple
question in his cross-examination whether he knew and
addressed Babu Singh PW 2 as his Fuffar. This question
was answered by him in the negative. However, PW 2 in his
cross-examination stated as under:-
“It is correct that I and Kaka Singh were
god brothers and Jit Singh PW addresses me as
Fuffar. I started from the village at 8 A.M.
I had come to purchase articles. I do not
remember what I was to purchase on that day.”
6. The above contradiction does show that PW 1 was
not stating correct facts even on oath before the Court.
There was no occasion for him to deny relationship which
was known to all concerned. Another material
contradiction between the statements of PW 1 and PW 2 is
with regard to material part of the trap laid by the
police party. According to PW 1, “Patwari” (the accused)
came out of his office in order to make water and while
leaving he promised that after making water he will make
the entries regarding the mutations”. When he came out of
the office, the vigilance staff was present and the
Inspector disclosed his identity but the accused kept on
standing there. The powder was mixed into a glass of
water and with the same the colour of the water did not
change. On the other hand, PW2 in his examination in
chief itself stated that the accused was caught in his
office by the police inside the Chaubara. The Inspector
told the accused that he had taken the money and that the
accused kept silent. The Inspector took a glass of water
and put the powder in the same and the colour of the water
changed.
7. The version given by these two witnesses is at
considerable variance in regard to one and the same event,
which is the main plank of the prosecution case. Further
more, Babu Singh PW 2 did not support the case of the
prosecution any further and was permitted to be
cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor on the
same day. PW 3 Gurcharan Singh, who was the only
independent witness, also did not support the case of the
prosecution and has declared hostile and permitted to be
cross-examination by the learned trial Judge. PW 3 stated
that he did not see any signal and according to him also
the accused was sitting in his office when the Inspector
went to him. According to him Jit Singh pointed towards
the pant which was lying inside his office and the money
was taken out from the said pant.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the State
contended that the hands of the accused were washed and
that part of the prosecution case remains unrebutted and
in fact is supported by three witnesses. But, this by
itself, would not sufficient to convict the appellant.
The prosecution is obliged to prove its complete story and
particularly with regard to the event of trap laid for
recovering the money from the appellant which was
allegedly paid as bribe to him. However, it is correct
that minor discrepancies or even contradictions per se
would not be sufficient to throw out the case of the
prosecution, but where the discrepancies or contradictions
are serious and demolish the case of the prosecution
itself, in that event, advantage must go to the accused.
9. For the reasons afore-stated, this appeal is
allowed. The judgment of the learned trial Court dated
7.6.1990 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of
the charges framed against him.