Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Kiran Chander Asri - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-S-1070-SB-2005
Decided On : 28-05-2015
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTIONS 7 AND 13 - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - RECOVERY OF TAINTED CURRENCY NOTES - CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 - CONVICTION - APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of ` 2,000 from the complainant, a Sarpanch, for auctioning fish-ponds in the village. The appellant denied the charges and claimed innocence. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the complainant, a shadow witness, and a Gazetted Officer, who testified about the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe money. The appellant examined defense witnesses who testified about the appellant's enmity with the investigating officer and the absence of any official work pending with the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe money beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of the complainant, the shadow witness, and the Gazetted Officer, which were consistent and corroborated by the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the FSL report. The court also found that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which arises when an accused person is found in possession of illegal gratification.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe money beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the evidence of the shadow witness, being an official of the Vigilance Department, was reliable and could be relied upon. 3. Whether the appellant's plea of enmity with the investigating officer was sufficient to discredit the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe money beyond a reasonable doubt based on the consistent and corroborated testimonies of the complainant, the shadow witness, and the Gazetted Officer, as well as the recovery of the tainted currency notes and the FSL report. 2. The court held that the evidence of the shadow witness, though an official of the Vigilance Department, was reliable and could be relied upon, as there was no evidence to suggest that he was interested in the success of the case or had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. 3. The court held that the appellant's plea of enmity with the investigating officer was not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case, as there was no evidence of any personal grudge or recent enmity between the appellant and the investigating officer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
No, this is not a case where the court relied solely on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution proved demand, acceptance, and recovery through direct ocular testimony from the complainant (PW4 Ranbir Singh), who detailed multiple demands for ₹2,000 as a bribe for approving the fish-pond auction and handing over the tainted notes, and the shadow witness (PW8 Inspector Hari Chand), who was deputed to overhear the conversation, witness the handover, and give the pre-arranged signal upon acceptance. (!) (!) (!) [23000567740016][23000567740018] (!)
This testimony was consistent and mutually corroborative, further supported by the Gazetted Officer (PW5 Ram Mehar), who partially corroborated pre- and post-trap proceedings, including verification of notes, recovery from the appellant's drawer (after he moved them from his pocket), memos (Ex. PD, PE, PF, PG, PH), and chemical tests (hand wash, shirt pocket wash, note wash turning pink with sodium carbonate). [23000567740003][23000567740012][23000567740016][23000567740018]
The FSL report (Ex. PR) confirmed phenolphthalein traces, and the presumption under Section 20 PC Act arose upon proving possession, which the appellant failed to rebut. [23000567740005][23000567740018][23000567740023][23000567740025][23000567740027] (!)
The court explicitly held that "the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe money beyond a reasonable doubt" based on these consistent testimonies, recovery, and FSL corroboration, rejecting defense claims. [Finding of the Court][23000567740016][23000567740019][23000567740029]
1. The appellant-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') by learned Special Judge, Sonipat and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ` 1,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ` 2,000/- under Section 13 of the Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The accusations which led to the trial of the appellant are that complainant-Ranbir Singh (PW 4), was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mundlana. The said Gram Panchayat passed resolution for auction of fish-ponds in the village and sent it for approval to the appellant who fixed the auction for 15.03.1995. On that day, the appellant did not go to the village himself but deputed the Panchayat Officer who auctioned only the land of Panchayat and refused to auction the fish-ponds as per direction of the appellant. Thereafter, the auction of the fish-ponds was fixed for 22.03.1995. The complainant met the appellant who told him that if he wanted the auction of fish-ponds, he should have to pay ` 2000/- as bribe. The complainant expressed his inability to give the bribe at which the appellant told him in categorical terms that the complainant would have to pay ` 2,000/-, if he wanted to get the fish-ponds of his village auctioned. The appellant did not go to village Mundlana even on 22.03.1995 and then the auction was fixed for 06.04.1995 in consultation with the appellant, but later the appellant clearly told that there would be no auction without the payment of bribe. Since the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe to the appellant, he went to S.P. State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal, along with application (Ex. PC) dated 04.04.1995 and also produced before him two currency notes of ` 500/- each and ten currency notes of `100/- each.
3. After receipt of the application (Ex. PC), Mr. M.S. Ahlawat, the then S.P.S.V.B, Karnal, investigating officer, wrote a letter (Ex. PN) to the Government seeking permission for the raid and the permission was received by him on 06.04.1995. Then, he wrote a letter (Ex. PO) to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, for deputing some Gazetted Officer for being joined in the raiding party. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, directed Ram Mehar, XEN, Irrigation, to join the raid.
4. On 07.04.1995, when the investigating officer reached his office, Ranbir Singh, complainant was already present there and Inspector Hari Chand, S.V.B., Sonipat, was also incidentally present there. The investigating officer prepared a list of the currency notes (Ex. PD), memo (Ex. PF) with regard to recovery of notes (Ex. PF) and memo (Ex. PE) of handing over the notes to the complainant. The investigating officer registered the formal FIR (Ex. PP) at Police Station S.V.B. Karnal. Then a raiding party was formed which went to the office of XEN, Gohana, from where Ram Mehar, XEN, was joined in the raiding party. Ram Mehar, XEN, verified the currency notes which were again handed over to the complainant. Then they all went to the office of the appellant. Hari Chand, Inspector, was deputed as a shadow witness and instructed to give a fixed signal by moving his hand over the head after the acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant. The Investigating officer himself stood at the main gate of office of the B.D.O., along with Ram Mehar, XEN. The complainant and shadow witness went to the office of the appellant. After ten minutes thereof, the shadow witness passed the requisite signal upon which the raiding party went inside the office of the appellant, who was seen putting something in the drawer after removing the same from his pocket. The Investigating Officer gave his introduction to the appellant, who after some persuasion opened t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
