SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(HP) 182

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
K.C.SOOD
STATE OF H.P. - Appellant
Versus
SUKHDEV SINGH RANA - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 252 of 2003
Decided On : 09/03/2004

Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. Advocate General, for Appellant; Kapil Dev Sood with Sandip Agnihotri, for Respondent.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Illegal Gratification - Section 7, Section 13(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 7 and Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which define the offense of a public servant accepting gratification other than legal remuneration and committing criminal misconduct. The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, as per the legal provisions.

Fact of the Case:

The accused, a public servant, was acquitted of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded Rs. 2000 as illegal gratification for releasing payments due to the complainant for construction works. A trap was organized, and the accused was caught with the marked currency notes. However, the court found the evidence unreliable and acquitted the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. The evidence presented was unreliable and lacked corroboration. The court also noted the possibility of the accused being falsely implicated due to enmity with the complainant.

Issues: The key issue was whether the accused raised demand and accepted illegal gratification, as alleged by the prosecution. The court also considered the reliability of the evidence and the possibility of false implication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, as per the legal provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also highlighted the importance of independent and corroborative evidence in trap cases.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and acquitted the accused, emphasizing the lack of cogent and reliable evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court also ordered the return of the marked currency notes to the complainant.

JUDGMENT

1. This State appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Special Judge, Chamba dated February 21, 2003.

2. It appears, respondent Sukhdev Singh, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", was tried by the learned Special Judge, Chamba under Section 7 read with S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("Act" for short) and was acquitted by the impugned judgment. Prosecution case :

3. Accused Sukhdev Singh was posted as Block Development Officer, Mehla in the District of Chamba in the year 1997. Chain Lal Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gagla was awarded two works by the Block Development Officer, Mehla, i.e. : (a) Construction of Government Primary School, Gagla and (b) Construction of School at Kuran, in Gram Panchayat, Gagla. Complainant executed both the works but he was not released final payment(s) of the two works. Rupees 14,000/- were due in respect of the work of construction of School building and rupees 20,400/- in respect of the construction of Kuhal. Complainant Chain Lal met the accused for the release of the amount due to him. Accused demanded rupees 2000/- as illegal gratification for releasing the amount to the complainant. On July 21, 1997, he visited the accused in his office when accused demanded rupees 2000/- for releasing both the payments. The complainant then told the accused that he has no money to pay him and asked him to release the payment of one of the works so that he is able to pay of rupees 2000/- to him and second instalment may be released to him after he had paid rupees 2000/-, as illegal gratification, to him. On this understanding, accused released payment, i.e. last instalment (in respect of construction of kuhal) amounting to rupees 20,400/- on September 22, 1997 and directed him to visit his office on September 25, 1997 along with bribe money of rupees 2000/- so that the cheque of rupees 14,000/- in respect of the construction of School is released to him. The complainant informed his friend Karan Singh on September 25, 1997 about the demand made by the accused. Both of them came to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption, Chamba and informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sukhdev Sharma (P.W. 12) about the demand of illegal gratification by the accused. On the complaint made by Chain Lal complainant, a formal FIR (Ex. P.W. 1/A) was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A trap was organized. The complainant handed over 20 currency notes each of rupees 100/- denomination to be used as trap money. The number(s) of the currency notes, thereafter, were noted on the Memo Exhibit P.W. 1/C and thereafter currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The treated currency notes were put inside the front pocket of the shirt of the complainant. The complainant was directed to give these currency notes to the accused on the demand which may be made by him. Deputy Superintendent of Police constituted a raiding party which included, apart from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karam Singh as shadow witness, Mr. R. S. Sharma, Tehsildar Chamba, Som Raj Sub-Inspector, Ranjit Singh Head Constable, Rakesh Kumar and Syed Mohammad constables. The complainant and shadow witness were directed to go to the office of the accused with the direction that on demand made by the accused, the complainant shall hand over the treated notes to the accused. Karam Singh was directed that after the currency notes are handed over to the accused, he would give a signal by moving his right hand around his face on which the Police raiding party would reach the accused. The other members of the raiding party followed in a private vehicle.

4. Complainant met the accused in his office but accused asked him to meet him at his residence between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. At about 1.30 p.m., the complainant along with Karam Singh went to the house of the accused. The other members of the raiding party concealed themselves in the adjoining building

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top