Criminal Misc. No.A-592-MA of 2007 -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.A-592-MA of 2007
Date of decision : 17.12.2008
State of Punjab .....Appellant
Versus
Joginder Singh and another ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate Genera, Punjab.
Ms. Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Advocate for respondent no.2.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The appellant has applied to obtain the leave to appeal against
verdict of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge vide judgment
dated 3.7.2006.
The appellant prosecuted the respondent/accused on a charge
under Section 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on an
allegation that the latter was caught red handed after he had accepted the
illegal gratification from the first informant/complainant, who had
approached the former for the release of an electricity connection. The
respondent/accused was posted as Tehsil Welfare Officer, Sunam and the
application (for the purpose aforementioned) had to be routed through that
office. The respondent/accused had demanded illegal gratification of
Rs.100/- as consideration for forwarding his application, for the grant of
electricity connection in terms of a Governmental scheme which envisaged
the providing of one electricity connection free of costs to all the members
Criminal Misc. No.A-592-MA of 2007 -2-
***
of scheduled castes of the village.
Learned Special Judge invalidated the prosecution
presentation by noticing that the complainant and also the other recovery
witness had not supported the prosecution plea are that no independent
witness had been joined inspite of the fact that plenty of people were
available over there. It was noticed that the prosecution had not been able
to prove the audible demand of bribe and acceptance thereof by the
appellant. In that context, plenty of discrepancies in the inter-se statement
of shadow witness PW-10 Darshan Singh and PW-11 Joginder Singh were
noticed. It was further noticed that the complainant had testified that
none else was around when he handed over the tainted money to the
respondent/accused. The other recovery witness and Investigating Officer
had also not conceded the presence of the trio at the time tainted currency
notes had been handed over to the accused. The shadow witness have
claimed having rejoined duty in the office of S.D.M. At 1.30 P.M. As against
it, the statement PW-11 Joginder Singh it was was to the effect that the
party was freed from the spot at about 3.00 P.M.
I have given my considered thought to the reasoning recorded
by the learned Trial Magistrate in support of the finding of exoneration. I
find that reasoning recorded is fact based and is relatable to the material
obtaining on the file and further that there is nothing illegal or perverse in
the manner of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Magistrate. I
have no hesitation in holding that present is not a fit case for the grant of
leave to appeal.
Dismissed.
December 17, 2008 (S.D. ANAND)
Pka JUDGE
Criminal Misc. No.A-592-MA of 2007 -3-
***