Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
P.K. Verma - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.S-497-SB of 2006 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-02-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate
Mere recovery of tainted currency from the possession of an accused is not sufficient to prove the offence of demanding and accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless the prosecution proves the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused.
Headnote:
The appellant, a Commander Works Engineer, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.5000/- from the complainant, a contractor, for clearing his pending bills. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the grounds that he had no motive to demand the bribe, he was not competent to clear the bills, and the complainant had an inimical relationship with him due to the cancellation of his contracts. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant, that he was not competent to release the bills of the complainant even after receiving the bribe, and that no payment was to be made by the appellant even if the bills of the complainant had been cleared by the concerned authorities. The court also found that the complainant had motive to falsely implicate the appellant as his three contracts had been cancelled on the recommendation of the appellant. The court held that the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe was not believable without corroboration, and that the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant was not sufficient to prove the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Commander Works Engineer, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.5000/- from the complainant, a contractor, for clearing his pending bills. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the grounds that he had no motive to demand the bribe, he was not competent to clear the bills, and the complainant had an inimical relationship with him due to the cancellation of his contracts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant, that he was not competent to release the bills of the complainant even after receiving the bribe, and that no payment was to be made by the appellant even if the bills of the complainant had been cleared by the concerned authorities. The court also found that the complainant had motive to falsely implicate the appellant as his three contracts had been cancelled on the recommendation of the appellant. The court held that the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe was not believable without corroboration, and that the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant was not sufficient to prove the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand of bribe by the appellant? 2. Whether the appellant was competent to release the bills of the complainant even after receiving the bribe? 3. Whether any payment was to be made by the appellant even if the bills of the complainant had been cleared by the concerned authorities? 4. Whether the complainant had motive to falsely implicate the appellant? 5. Whether the testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe was believable without corroboration? 6. Whether the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant was sufficient to prove the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant as the complainant's testimony was not believable without corroboration, and the recovery of tainted currency from the appellant was not sufficient to prove the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The court held that the appellant was not competent to release the bills of the complainant even after receiving the bribe as he was not the competent authority to do so. 3. The court held that no payment was to be made by the appellant even if the bills of the complainant had been cleared by the concerned authorities as the complainant's outstanding payments were to be adjusted against the demand raised by the department on account of cancellation of his contracts. 4. The court held that the complainant had motive to falsely implicate the appellant as his three contracts had been cancelled on the recommendation of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
1. This is appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 28.02.2006 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab at Patiala, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short-P.C. Act) and sentenced as follows:-
Sr. No.
Under Section
Sentence.
1.
7 of P.C. Act.
Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2.
13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of P.C. Act.
Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
FIR (Ex.PW5/1) in this case was registered on the complaint dated 22.06.2000 (Ex.PW1/1) of Paramjit Singh, which reads as follows:-
“I am contractor by profession. I am registered with Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandimandir vide index No.A-6. I have been taking contracts from MES since 1985. Presently, I have completed three contracts allotted by the office of Commander Works Engineer Patiala. I am handling the contracts of cement handling, Road construction and building construction.
2. My two bills amounting to Rs.45,000/- for road works and Rs.85,000/- for cement handling are pending since November 1999. I have been meeting surveyor of works, and concerned Asstt. Surveyor of works, but my bills were not passed.
3. On 20.06.2000, I met Sh. P.K. Verma, Commander Works Engineer Patiala at his office and requested him to clear my pending bills. Shri P.K. Verma told me that he will pass the bill if an amount of Rs.5,000/- is paid to him. He assured me that he will instruct concerned staff to clear my bills. He asked to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- by 23.06.2000 positively. I do not want to pay any bribe to Sh. P.K. Verma and legal action against Sh. P.K. Verma may be taken.”
4. Superintendent of Police, CBI deputed Inspector M.S. Brar to lay the trap. He called some officials of CBI and two witnesses from Home Department, U.T., Chandigarh to join the raiding party on 23.06.2000. All the CBI officials and independent witnesses assembled at his office, who were shown complaint (Ex.PW1/1). Paramjit Singh handed over 50 currency notes of Rs.100/- each to Inspector M.S. Brar on which P-powder was applied and a demonstration was held for the raiding party to show the reaction of P- powder with sodium carbonate. A list containing the serial numbers of the currency notes Ex.PW1/2 was prepared which was signed by the complainant. He was asked to keep the currency notes and hand over the same to the appellant on demand. Before handing over the currency notes to him, personal search of the complainant was taken and nothing incriminating was left with him. Complainant kept the tainted currency in the pocket of his shirt. Complainant was asked not to touch the currency notes till handing over the same to the appellant or to shake hand with him. Jaswant Singh (PW2) was requested to remain present with Paramjit Singh and to over hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. They were also instructed to keep a watch on the tainted currency after delivery of the same to the appellant. The pre-trap memo/handing over memo (Ex.PW1/3) was prepared.
5. The raiding party then left towards Patiala in two vehicles and reached near the office of appellant at Sangrur Road at about 4.30 p.m. Complainant and shadow witness Jaswant Singh were instructed to move towards office chamber of the appellant. Jaswant Singh was given instruction to give signal by rubbing his head with the hand, after the receipt of bribe money by the appellant.
6. On reaching the office of appellant, complainant came to know that he was busy in
