Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
MOHINDER SINGH – APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF U.T. – RESPONDENT
CRA-S No. 1864-SB of 2008
Decided On : 18-11-2015
For the Appellant :Suman Jain with Man Mohan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Add. P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Prevention of Corruption Act, specifically the provisions related to demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the presumption against the accused under section 20 of the PC Act.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, specifically sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2), and their application in the case. The court highlighted the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the presumption against the accused under section 20 of the PC Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the accused-appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting illegal gratification in a dowry case investigation. The accused was apprehended red-handed after demanding and accepting tainted currency notes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution successfully established the case against the accused, emphasizing the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and the presumption against the accused under section 20 of the PC Act. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
Issues: The issues included material contradictions in witness statements, the alleged false implication of the accused, and the corroboration of the complainant's version by the shadow witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, the presumption against the accused under section 20 of the PC Act, and the corroboration of the complainant's version by other witnesses. The court also noted that minor contradictions in witness statements do not undermine the overall case of the prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were upheld. The accused was directed to serve the remaining part of the sentence.
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.9.2008 and the order of sentence dated 24.9.2008, passed by the Special Judge, Chandigarh whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-
Offence
Sentence
Fine
In default
7 of PC Act
RI for one year
Rs. 2000/-
RI for 3 months
13(1)(d)/13(2) of PC Act
RI for one year
Rs. 3000/-
RI for 3 months
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts of the case as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment reads as under :-
"That Bir Singh son of Sh. Daya Chand, resident of House No. 1828, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh made a complaint to the Vigilance Cell, Chandigarh alleging therein that his daughter Babita got married to Rajesh son of Kishan Chand, resident of Mohalla Kasampura, Tehsil Mandi, Meerut Cantt., about seven years ago at his residence that is house No. 1828, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh. After marriage, the in-laws of his daughter started harassing her and about two and half years back, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. The matter was reported to the Women and Child Support Unit, Sector 17, Chandigarh and thereafter both the parties reached a compromise. Then the in-laws of his daughter took her with them to Meerut. After 4/5 months they again started torturing Babita for dowry and about 3/4 months back, after giving beatings, they left her at Hallomajra Chowk, Chandigarh. He filed a written complaint in the Woman and Child Support Unit, Chandigarh, which was marked to Mohinder Singh, Sub Inspector. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh, Sub Inspector demanded Rs. 6000/- to arrest the in-laws of his daughter. He paid Rs. 3000/- to him in the last week of March. In the 1st week of April 2006, he along with his daughter, SI Mohinder Singh and other police officials went to Meerut in the police vehicle and returned on next day. Then on next day, they again went to Meerut for recovery of dowry articles and SI Mohinder Singh asked him to bear all the expenses and both the days, he demanded bottle of whisky costing Rs. 380/- and Rs. 200/- for the meal of the accused and Rs. 2000/- were incurred on the meal of other officials. After this, SI Mohinder Singh demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 3000/- from him after producing accused Kishan Chand in the Court. On this, he explained that he has applied for loan and on receipt of loan he will pay the balance amount. SI Mohinder Singh told him that if he will not pay the amount then he will help the accused. Some of the dowry articles were recovered and some of the items are yet to be recovered. When he went to the office of SI Mohinder Singh for the recovery of remaining articles, he again demanded Rs. 1000/- as bribe and told that if he will not pay money then the remaining items will not be recovered. On 17.4.2006, SI Mohinder Singh contacted the complainant on his mobile No. 9814921752 and demanded the balance amount and also told him that he has to go to Meerut again to arrest the accused and complainant replied that he has only Rs. 1000/- with him and promised to pay the same on next day.
On the basis of this complaint, FIR Ex.PY was registered. Two officials, namely, Kanshi Ram and Gian Chand from Food and Supplies Department were also summoned to join the raiding party. Complainant Bir Singh, on being asked, handed over two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each bearing No. 5CC 652036 and SBP 350707. Inspector Bishwa Lal applied phenolphthalein powder and put his initials 'B.L' and date as 18.4.2006' thereon. After conducting personal search of complainant Bir Singh, the above said two currency notes were given to him with the instructions to hand over the currency notes to accused Mohinder Singh on his demand. Inspector Bishwa Lal prepared memo of ja
