Criminal Appeal No.258-MA of 2009 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.258-MA of 2009
Date of decision : 13.11.2009
State of Haryana ....Appellant
Versus
Dhanpat Rai ....Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Ms. Neena Madan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
S. D. ANAND, J.
The respondent-accused Dhanpat Rai was prosecuted by the
Police Station, S.V.B., Ambala for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. It is apparent from the impugned
judgment itself that there were initially two accused in that case. The other
accused (Y.K.Gupta) died during the pendency of investigation and the
State had also withdrawn the prosecution against him vide order Ex. D-2.
It proved by the record-based testimony of DW-2 RamKumar Saini. On
appreciation of the material obtaining on the file, a verdict of acquittal was
recorded by the learned Special Judge, Kurukshetra. The State is in
appeal against the finding of exoneration in favour of the respondent-
accused.
In obtaining the view aforementioned, learned Special Judge
was persuaded by the following facts which were established on record.
1. There was variation in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
inasmuch as PW-7 Sanjiv Kumar had testified at the trial that respondent-
Accused Dhanpat was initially sitting in the room; while his co-accused
Criminal Appeal No.258-MA of 2009 -2-
****
Y.K.Gupta was not present at that time and it was only subsequently that
latter was brought to the room where the former accused was sitting and it
is there only that recovery of tainted currency notes was effected from the
possession of respondent-accused Dhanpat. His statement, in the context,
was falsified by PW-6 Ravinder Kumar who had testified on oath that both
of them ( i.e.Y.K.Gupta and Dhanpat) were present in the same room.
Inconsistency in the statements of witnesses is apparent in the
circumstances of the case.
2. No independent witness had been joined in the raiding party.
3. PW-11 Ram Saran DSP had nowhere testified having offered
his personal search in the first instance before proceeding to search the
person of respondent-accused Dhanpat. The learned Special Judge
notice of that an offer on point of personal search by the police official in
accord with the law laiddown by this Court in Resham Singh Vs. The
State (U.T.Chandigarh) 1981 PLR 402.
It may be noticed that, as per the prosecution presentation,
the bribe amount had been first handed over to Dhanpat on the asking of
Y.K.Gupta. It was that latter only who had demanded amount of illegal
gratification.
Learned State Counsel is not in a position to aver that there is
any factual inaccuracy in noticing the above facts by the Special Judge.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind
that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and
also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call
for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch
stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal
Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of
Criminal Appeal No.258-MA of 2009 -3-
****
Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR
2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in
holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it so ordered
accordingly.
November 13, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE