Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge.
Bhup Singh …Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. …Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 2006.
Decided on: March 1, 2011.
For the appellant :Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the respondent Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. AG, with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG.
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must establish the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Headnote:
Corruption - Government Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a government servant, was convicted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for demanding a bribe. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe for conducting a post mortem on a cow.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not establish the demand and acceptance of a bribe. The court disbelieved the defense plea and convicted the appellant, but the appellate court found that the prosecution's case was not established and acquitted the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe for conducting the post mortem on the cow.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses indicated that the money was demanded for taxi fare, not as a bribe. The court also noted discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the treatment of currency notes with phenolphthalein powder.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act.
Surjit Singh, J.
Appellant, Bhup Singh, a government servant, has, in this appeal, assailed the judgment, dated 29.8.2006, of learned Special Judge, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act), and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- for offence, under Section 7 of the Act and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5000/-, for offence under Section 13(2) of the Act.
2. Appellant had been working as Veterinary Officer in the Veterinary Hospital at Mandi, in December, he there reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
1997. On the night of 29.12.1997, a Jersy cow of PW-4 Santi Devi, died. That cow was insured. To raise claim, for the loss of cow, from the Insurance Company, post mortem report by a Veterinary Officer of some government institution, was required. So, PW-4 Santi Devi, through her son PW-1 Tej Ram, who was working as Langri in the Police Department, approached the appellant to conduct post mortem on the dead cow. Appellant went to the village of PW-1 Tej Ram and conducted post mortem of the cow and told him that he could collect the post mortem report from his office. On 31.12.1997, PW-1 Tej Ram went to the office of the appellant to collect the post mortem report. Appellant, allegedly, demanded a bribe of Rs.300/-.
3. PW-1 Tej Ram then, accompanied by his father PW-3 Netar Singh, reported the matter to the Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption, Sh. Yog Raj, PW-11. FIR Ex.PW-1/A was registered. PW-1 Tej Ram was required to produce currency notes of Rs.300/-. He produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- and two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each. Those currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. A memo was prepared in which numbers of currency notes were mentioned. Currency notes were handed over to PW-1 Tej Ram, with the instructions not to fiddle with them and to give the same to the appellant. PW-3 Netar Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness. Tej Ram and Netar Singh then went to the office of the appellant. PW-11 Yog Raj, Dy. S.P. associated with him PW-2 Partap Singh, Tehsildar and some officials, namely PW-9 Iqbal Singh, Inspector, PW-8 MHC Inder Singh, and PW-7 Krishan Chand, as members of the raiding party and followed Tej Ram and Netar Singh.
4. When PW-1 Tej Ram went to the office of the appellant, the latter asked if he had brought the money, upon which Tej Ram passed on the currency notes to him. PW-3 Netar Singh, who was acting as shadow witness, gave the prefixed signal to PW-11 Yog Raj, Dy. S.P. and his party. Yog Raj immediately went to the office room of the appellant and overpowered him. He disclosed his identity to him and required him to produce the currency notes. Appellant took out the currency notes from one of the side pockets of his pants, which he was wearing. He was made to wash his hands in plain water. Then solution of sodium carbonate in water was added to the hand wash, which turned pink. Pocket of the pants of the appellant was also washed and to that wash also, solution of sodium carbonate was added and that too turned pink. Samples of the hand wash and the pants’ pocket wash were taken into two separate nips. Currency notes were taken into possession and seizure memo was prepared. Samples of hand wash and pants’ pocket wash were sent to the Chemical Excaminer, who reported that the hand wash and pants’ pocket wash contained traces of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate.
5. Appellant’s appointing authority was approached to accord sanction to prosecute him. On receipt of such sanction, appellant was challaned.
6. Learned Special Judge, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and on finding that a prima facie case was made out, charged the appellant with the aforesaid two offences, to whic
