IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 270 of 2012 Reserved on: 09.05.2025 Decided on: 23.05.2025 _____________________________________________________

Manoj Kumar …..Appellant.

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent.

_____________________________________________________

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

_____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Swati Sharma and Mr.

Anubhav Chopra, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Manoj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment of conviction, dated 30.06.2012, and order of sentence, dated 02.07.2012, passed by learned Special Judge(1), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., whereby the accused was convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the PC Act’).

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:

2(a). Shri Rewati Ram (complainant) alongwith Baldev Thakur, made a complaint to Police of Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Mandi, that he was B-Class Contractor of HPPWD and he had taken the construction work of Flood Protection at ITBP Kullu and the same work was being supervised by SDO Manoj Kumar (accused) of Central Public Works Department. The complainant further complained that for the aforesaid work he received part payment of Rs.5,63,000/-, whereupon the then SDO Manoj Kumar of CPWD (accused), for the said work, started demanding a sum of Rs.30,000/-, as bribe. When the complainant refused to pay the amount, the accused threatened him as to how he would do the work in future. The accused time and again exerted pressure on the complainant to make the payment of the bribe and on 24.05.2007 he (accused) telephonically informed the complainant that he was coming to Mandi and directed him to make the payment. Thus, the complainant approached the police.

2(b). The police registered a case against the accused under the apt Sections of the PC Act and the investigation commenced. A team of police personnel was constituted and Investigating Officer gave a demonstration qua the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate in presence of the complainant. Phenolphthalein power and sodium carbonate were put in empty match boxes and the same were sealed. Thereafter, the complainant produced an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the denomination of 12 currency notes of Rs.1000/- and 36 currency notes of Rs.500/-. The notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant with a direction to keep the same in his pocket. The complainant was also directed to have a handshake with the accused. Shri Baldev Singh was deputed as a shadow witness and he was directed to give a particular signal to the raiding party as and when the accused accepted the bribe.

2(c). After giving the bribe amount to the accused, the shadow witness signaled the raiding party, whereupon the accused was nabbed. As so many persons gathered on the spot, therefore, the accused was taken to Police Station SV & ACB, Mandi, where his hands were got washed in a bowl with fresh water. Thereafter, sodium carbonate powder was mixed in it, then the color of the said water turned into light pink, which was poured in a nip and the nip was sealed. Subsequently, the accused took out currency notes from the pocket of his trousers worn by him and the number of notes were tallied with the memo. Police took into possession the trousers worn by the accused and his handkerchief. Thereafter, the police completed other codal formalities. After comple