2015 Supreme(P&H) 1097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Darshan Singh
CRA No.S-2123-SB of 2009
Dhyan Singh
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 10/08/2015}

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--If two views are possible that view should be adopted which is favourable to the accused--The prosecution is also to establish its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that too in the manner alleged by it. (Para 26)

       (B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Acceptance not proved--It is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it as acceptance of gratification--Prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification. (Para 40)

       (C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Presumption of demand--In the absence of proof of demand the question of raising the presumption would not arise--Conviction set aside--Accused acquitted. (Para 42)

       (D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Defective Investigation--Mere presence of the phenolphthalein powder in the hand wash and pocket wash is not sufficient to establish the ingredients of the offence--The Investigating Officer has deposed that the solution at the time demonstration was prepared in the steel trembler and that very steel trembler was used to obtain the hand wash of the accused--He has nowhere deposed that the said steel trembler was properly washed after the demonstration and before taking the hand wash of the accused--In these circumstances, the presence of the phenolphthalein powder in the hand wash and pocket wash will not advance the case of the prosecution--Accused acquitted. (Para 39)

       (E) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Demand not proved--Accused was sitting in room at point ‘A’ and shadow witness was standing outside the room at point ‘C’--So it is not practically possible that a person at a distance of 30 feet can hear any conversation with respect of demand and acceptance of bribe--Testimony of Shadow witness not reliable--Accused acquitted. (Para 29)

       (F) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Demand not proved—Complainant in his entire testimony has not stated anywhere that any bribe was demanded from him by the present accused--Even at the time of trap, he has not deposed that accused had demanded any bribe amount from him, rather he has stated that he kept the tainted amount on a table in the office—Thus, complainant has not supported the prosecution version about demand and acceptance--Accused acquitted. (Para 30)

       (G) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Wrong Identity--Complainant in his testimony has attributed the demand of bribe to some other official i.e Duty Clerk and not to the present appellant who was posted as a Duty Inspector--Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. (Para 30)

       (H) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Unfair Investigation--Petitioner and his colleague were taken by vigilance staff is proved on record--Complaint was also against that colleague--But said colleague was let off without assigning any reason and said colleague has been found to be friend of Investigating Officer--However, I.O. flatly refused about taking said colleague--I.O. held to concealing the facts--Accused acquitted on raising of doubt about fair and impartial Investigation. (Para 33)

       (I) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Demand not proved--Complainant has categorically attributed demand to colleague of accused and not to accused--He has simply stated that he kept the tainted currency notes on a table of the office--He has not specifically stated that the tainted currency notes were kept on the table of the accused-appellant--There were 3/4 other seats in that room for the employees to work--So, certainly other tables were also available in that office room--Accused acquitted. (Para 34)

       (J) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.9 & S.13--Acquittal--Benefit of Doubt--Unfair Investigation--Vigilance Officer was appointed as shadow witness--He was supposed to play impartial role but has taken active part even in recording the proceedings--It raises doubt about fair and impartial investigation. (Para 37)