Judgment :

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Two short points fall for consideration in this Appeal. One is whether the opinion of a handwriting expert can be admitted in evidence without examination of the handwriting expert and the other is whether a person who is charged of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and is subsequently acquitted of the charge under Section 7, can still be convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the aforesaid Act.

3. The Appellant and one Kewal Kumar were convicted by the Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The co-accused Mahesh Kumar was, however, acquitted of all the charges.

4. According to the prosecution, on 23rd April, 2002, one Anil Kumar, son of Kewal Prakash Mehta, made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ambala, stating that he was running a dairy adjoining his house. On 19th April, 2002, Kewal Kumar and the Appellant herein, who were employed as Assistant Lineman and Meter Reader, respectively, under the Electricity Board, Sadhaura, came to his house for checking the electric meter. After such checking, the said Anil Kumar was made to sign on a paper and was informed that the load in the meter was in excess of the permissible load and the matter would have to be reported to the Board which could entail a fine of at least Rs.14,000-15,000/-. The accused persons then informed him that he would have to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-as bribe if he wanted the case to be hushed up. The further case of the prosecution is that on 25th April, 2002, both the accused came to Anil Kumar's house and, once again, demanded the bribe money and ultimately the said two accused agreed to accept a sum of Rs.2,000/- between 4.00- 5.00 p.m. on the next date, failing which the case against him would have to be made ready, but if payment was made, the matter would be hushed up.

5. The matter was endorsed by the Superintendent of Police to the Vigilance Inspector before whom the complainant produced Rs.2,000/-for the purpose of laying a trap. Ultimately, the accused Kewal Kumar as well as Mahesh Kumar came to the complainant's house and went inside and on a signal being given, the members of the raiding party went inside the house and asked Kewal Kumar to hand over the bribe money which he had taken from the complainant. Kewal Kumar indicated that the money had been given to Mahesh Kumar and on demand Mahesh Kumar made over the same to the Inspector. The hands of both Kewal Kumar and Mahesh Kumar were got washed separately in a solution of Sodium Carbonate, the colour of which turned pink. The accused were put under arrest and after police investigation, a charge sheet was filed against them in Court for their trial.

6. All the three accused were charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the above-mentioned Act and were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinbefore. The judgment and order of the Trial Court was questioned before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.427-SB of 2005 filed by Keshav Dutt, the Appellant herein, and Criminal Appeal No.438-SB of 2005 filed by Kewal Kumar. The third Appeal No.1328-SB of 2009 was filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of Mahesh Kumar of the charges framed against him. The High Court while affirming the judgment of the Trial Court as far as Kewal Kumar and the Appellant are concerned, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year. The High Court also dismissed the Appeal preferred by the State.

7. It is against the said order that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.

8. The main contention of Mr. Nitin Sangra, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, is whether a charg