Judgment:
M. Jeyapaul, J.(Oral) -
The accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the accused Bhupinder pal Singh who was serving as a Constable in the Excise department came down to the hotel run by PW1 Jit Kaur on Kapurthala-Subhanpur road in village Boot at about 4:00 pm on 2.5.2001, made a search of her hotel and informed her that she was transacting business in illicit liquor and permitted the drunkard persons to sit inside the hotel. Her husband was away at that point of time. PW2 Jarnail Singh, the younger brother of the husband of PW1, came to the shop at that time. PW1 put her thumb impression on a blank paper as commanded by the accused. The accused also threatened her with criminal action based on the thumb impression she had affixed on the blank paper if at all she failed to fulfill the demand of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe. PW1 having not chosen to part with any bribe proceeded to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar alongwith PW2 Jarnail Singh and gave a written complaint to PW5 DSP Amrik Singh. Based on the said complaint, a formal First Information Report Ex.PA/2 was registered by Inspector Jasbir Singh. She also handed over two currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- to PW5. There was a demonstration of phenolphthalein test in the presence of PW1 and PW2. PW3 Satnam Singh, Junior Field Investigator and PW4 Dr. Harvinder Singh Kahlon attached to the office of Animal Husbandry were associated by PW5. The purpose of their summoning to the office was explained by PW5 to them. After treating the currency notes brought by PW1 with phenolphthalein powder, PW1 and PW2 were directed to go to the shop of PW1. PW5 in the company of PW3 and PW4 followed them. As the demand of Rs. 1,000/- was made by the accused, PW1 handed over the said amount to him. Consequently, the accused returned the blank note with her thumb impression. A pre-arranged signal was given by PW2 to PW5 and his police party. Thereafter, PW5 and other police officials alongwith PW3 and PW4 descended on the scene of occurrence. Recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was made. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared. The hands of the accused which were dipped in the sodium carbonate turned pink in colour. His left pocket shirt also turned pink in colour. Recovery was made. The accused also was arrested by PW5. Having completed investigation, PW5 charge- sheeted the accused.
3. I heard the elaborate submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused challenging the very verdict of conviction recorded by the trial Court. The submission made by the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, supporting the verdict of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was also heard by me.
4. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is found that there is no whisper from her testimony that there was a demand of Rs. 1,000/- made by the accused prior to the obtention of her thumb impression on a blank paper. Only after obtaining her thumb impression in a blank paper it is alleged by PW1 that a threat was wielded to PW1 by the accused that a criminal action would be taken by him based on the thumb impression affixed by her hand in the blank paper Ex.P6, if at all she did not fulfill the demand of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe.
5. Such a version of PW1 is not found to be credible. If at all the accused wanted to obtain some bribe from PW1, he would have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from her prior to the obtention of her thumb impression on a blank paper. Without making any demand he would not have ventured to come out with a direct threat by just obtaining her thumb impression on a blank paper. Such a conduct imputed on the part of the accused does appear to be abnormal.
6. Ex.P6 the blank paper wherein the thumb impression of the accused alone is found could be created at any point of time, inasmuch as no other signature is found in the said blank paper. PW3 Satnam Singh the witness who was associated by PW5 would state that never was Ex.P6 taken into possession by PW5 in his presence. After all the accused was serving as a Constable. It is a matter of fact that he does not have any authority to register any case. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Constable had gone alongwith other police officials. There is nothing on record to indicate who actually were those police officials who infact accompanied the accused the previous day of the occurrence.
7. PW1 never whispered that the accused expressed his plan to come the next day to her shop to collect the money demanded by him. As per the evidence of PW1, the accused had left on 2.5.2001 having made a demand of money of Rs. 1,000/- after getting her thumb impression in a blank paper. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused came down to the shop of PW1 the next day i.e. on 3.5.2001 as articulated by him the previous day itself. When it was not in the imagination of PW1, PW2 and the investigating officer PW5 that the accused would descend on the shop of PW1 the next day, it is quite understandable how PW5 associated PW1 to PW4, made elaborate preparation to trap the accused on 3.5.2001 the day when PW1 approached PW5 with a written complaint. Therefore, the trap organized by PW5 on 3.5.2001 with the association of PW1 to PW4 is found to be highly doubtful.
8. PW1 during the course of cross examination dropped a bombshell damaging the very case of the prosecution that never the accused made any demand of bribe, nor had he received a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from her. Such an irretrievable damage caused to the case of the prosecution could not be salvaged by the prosecution even with the evidence of PW2 who also was waiting in the wing to bombard the case of the prosecution. PW2 has deposed even during the course of chief examination that the demand of Rs. 1,000/- made by the accused from PW1 was informed to him by PW1. Even such a hearsay testimony has been completely shattered by PW1 during the course of cross examination.
9. PW2 was the shadow witness cited by the prosecution. In other words, he was a witness who was very much interested in the outcome of the case launched by his own kith and kin. Instead of the officials who were employed by PW5, such an interested witness had been sent alongwith PW1 as a shadow witness. He has finally come out with a version that nothing was paid as bribe by PW1 Jit Kaur, his sister in law, to the accused who was a Constable.
10. PW1 and PW2 were the witnesses who were privy to the demand and receipt of the bribe as per the case of the prosecution. When both of them resiled from their original version and have come out with a version that there was no demand of bribe by the accused and no payment of bribe by PW1 to the accused, the case of the prosecution has completely fallen flat. None of the other official witnesses who were waiting about a furlong away from the shop of PW1 was competent to speak of the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. They have, of course, spoken to the fact that the tainted currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- were recovered from the possession of the accused. Mere recovery of of the currency notes from the possession of the accused would not constitute an offence either under Section 7 or under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution should establish that there was not only a demand of bribe but also acceptance thereof by the accused. The prosecution has infact failed to establish the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to constitute the respective offences thereunder. The case of the prosecution is writ large with doubts. The benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused. Consequently, he is entitled to acquittal.
11. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bond executed by him shall stand discharged. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
Appeal allowed.