Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1158000
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-03-2014
AppellantPresent:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl. appeal no.1602-sb of 2003 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl. appeal no.1602-sb of 2003 date of decision: 03.07.2014 balbir singh ....appellant versus state of haryana ....respondent before :- hon'ble mrs.justice daya chaudhary present:- mr.rajinder goyal, advocate for the appellant. mr.pradeep virk, d.a.g., haryana for the respondent-state. ***** daya chaudhary, j. in the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/20.08.2003 passed by special judge, narnaul, whereby, he has been convicted for offence punishable under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months along with fine of ` 2,000/- with default clause. briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant-balbir singh was posted as forest guard. complainant-ram karan had grown some saplings of neem tress over his fields. along with neem trees, a keekar tree was also grown in between the canal and his field. said neem tree was cut in the month of may, 2001. a complaint was made by complainant- ram karan that the keekar tree which belonged to forest department has been cut down and the value of that tree was rs.800/-. accused-appellant asked him to pay a sum of ` 500/- as illegal gratification for hushing up the matter and not to initiate any proceedings against him. he agreed to pay a kaur gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl. appeal no.1602-sb of 2003 2 sum of ` 500/- on 07.07.2001. a raiding party was constituted and currency notes were recovered from the possession of appellant which were kept in the pocket of his shirt. the appellant was arrested after personal search and a ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, a formal fir was registered. on completion of investigation and on receipt of sanction order (exhibit `pl').challan was presented against the appellant. the prosecution examined si jarnail singh as pw-1, constable mahesh kumar as pw-2, r.s.verma, s.d.m mahendergarh as pw-3, rampal as pw-4, ram karan complainant as pw-5, hukam singh dsp as pw-6 and sohan lal, deputy superintendent, forest department as pw-7. thereafter, the statement under section 313 cr.p.c was recorded, wherein, the appellant pleaded innocence and false implication. in defence, the accused-appellant examined tara chand, deputy ranger forest department, mahendergarh as dw-1. on conclusion of trial by appreciating the evidence on record, the accused-appellant was held guilty for offence punishable under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months with a fine of ` 2,000/- with default clause vide judgment dated 16/20.08.2003. the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court has been challenged by raising various grounds. learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has wrongly been convicted, whereas, nothing has come on record as to either he demanded or received any gratification. a complaint was already made at serial no.2407 dated 25.05.2001, which was recorded in damage report book against the complainant-ram karan, by the appellant by stating that he had cut a tree, a value of which was assessed as kaur gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl. appeal no.1602-sb of 2003 3 ` 800/-. the challan was already filed against the complainant. learned counsel also submits that there was no occasion to ask for any gratification of ` 500/- as a value of keekar tree was assessed as ` 800/-. learned counsel also submits that the case of the prosecution was not supported by any independent witness. said pw-4 rampal, while appearing, had clearly stated that he never joined investigation of the case and no currency note was handed over by anyone to the appellant in his presence. he has also stated that nothing was recovered from possession of the appellant in his presence. learned counsel also submits that neither pw-3 nor pw-6 heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant. the only eye-witness of the alleged occurrence rampal himself has not supported the case of the prosecution. learned counsel further submits that there are major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses which shows that the judgment of conviction has been passed contrary to the evidence on record. learned state counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the judgment of trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence, no interference is required. heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. admittedly, the appellant was posted as forest guard in the area, where, keekar tree was cut by the complainant. thereafter, a complaint was made by the appellant on 25.05.2001 and the value of keekar tree was assessed as ` 800/-. it was specifically mentioned in the entry made by the appellant that ram karan had cut a keekar tree no.15 having girth of 110 cms., the value of which was assessed as ` 800/-. kaur gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl. appeal no.1602-sb of 2003 4 thereafter, the complaint was made against the present appellant that he had demanded ` 500/- as illegal gratification. on the basis of complaint made by the complainant, a raiding party was constituted and recovery has been shown of currency notes of ` 500/- from the pocket of the appellant. pw-4 rampal, who was an independent witness and was associated at the time of raid, has stated that he never joined the investigation of the case and no currency notes were handed over to the appellant by any person in his presence and nothing was recovered from possession of the appellant in his presence. the trial court has not appreciated the statement of pw-4 rampal. in cross-examination, he has denied of having made any statement before the police but has admitted his signatures on exhibits `pe' and `pf', however he has stated that his signatures were obtained on blank paper. on perusal of statements of pws, it is clear that there are discrepancies in the statements of r.s.verma-s.d.m., mahendergarh and hukam singh, dsp regarding recovery of currency notes. as per statement of s.d.m-r.s.verma, the currency note was recovered from the pocket of shirt of the accused, whereas, as per statement of dsp, the notes were recovered from the identity card which was in the hand of the accused. it has also been mentioned in the statement of dw-1 tara chand, deputy ranger that the challan was already filed against the complainant and even the value of keekar tree was assessed as ` 800/-. thereafter, there was no occasion for demanding any illegal gratification of ` 500/-. it is clear from the facts as mentioned above that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by statement of independent witness, who was associated at the time of raid. said eye-witness pw-4 rampal was declared hostile as he has not supported the case of the prosecution. no doubt, the official witnesses cannot be disbelieved but kaur gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crl. appeal no.1602-sb of 2003 5 there are contradictions in the statements of pw-3 r.s verma, s.d.m.mahendergarh and pw-6-hukam singh, dsp. otherwise also, the complaint was already made against the complainant which was recorded in the damage report book and value of the tree was assessed as ` 800/-. subsequently, there was no occasion for him to give any bribe of ` 500/- as the difference of amount was only ` 300/-. after presentation of challan in the complaint against the complainant, there was no occasion not to initiate any proceedings against the complainant as the action was already taken which was in the jurisdiction of the appellant. it can be said that the action was already taken by the appellant against the complainant and there was no justification to demand money subsequently. on perusal of statement of witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. the trial court has not taken into consideration the statement of pw-4 rampal who was an independent witness and also the statement of dw-1 tara chand, deputy ranger, who has proved the entry of the complaint made in the damage report book by the accused appellant and the same was proved as exhibit `da'. accordingly, in view of the facts as mentioned above, there is merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and the judgment of trial court is not based on proper appreciation of evidence as available on record. as such, the present petition is allowed and the judgment passed by special judge, narnaul is set aside and surety/bail bonds furnished by the appellant are discharged. (daya chaudhary) 03.07.2014 judge gurpreet kaur gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

Crl.

Appeal No.1602-SB of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.

Appeal No.1602-SB of 2003 Date of Decision: 03.07.2014 Balbir Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State.

***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/20.08.2003 passed by Special Judge, Narnaul, whereby, he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months along with fine of ` 2,000/- with default clause.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant-Balbir Singh was posted as Forest Guard.

Complainant-Ram Karan had grown some saplings of Neem tress over his fields.

Along with Neem trees, a Keekar tree was also grown in between the canal and his field.

Said Neem tree was cut in the month of May, 2001.

A complaint was made by complainant- Ram Karan that the Keekar tree which belonged to Forest Department has been cut down and the value of that tree was Rs.800/-.

Accused-appellant asked him to pay a sum of ` 500/- as illegal gratification for hushing up the matter and not to initiate any proceedings against him.

He agreed to pay a Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.1602-SB of 2003 2 sum of ` 500/- on 07.07.2001.

A raiding party was constituted and currency notes were recovered from the possession of appellant which were kept in the pocket of his shirt.

The appellant was arrested after personal search and a ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, a formal FIR was registered.

On completion of investigation and on receipt of sanction order (Exhibit `PL').challan was presented against the appellant.

The prosecution examined SI Jarnail Singh as PW-1, Constable Mahesh Kumar as PW-2, R.S.Verma, S.D.M Mahendergarh as PW-3, Rampal as PW-4, Ram Karan complainant as PW-5, Hukam Singh DSP as PW-6 and Sohan Lal, Deputy Superintendent, Forest Department as PW-7.

Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein, the appellant pleaded innocence and false implication.

In defence, the accused-appellant examined Tara Chand, Deputy Ranger Forest Department, Mahendergarh as DW-1.

On conclusion of trial by appreciating the evidence on record, the accused-appellant was held guilty for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months with a fine of ` 2,000/- with default clause vide judgment dated 16/20.08.2003.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by raising various grounds.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has wrongly been convicted, whereas, nothing has come on record as to either he demanded or received any gratification.

A complaint was already made at Serial No.2407 dated 25.05.2001, which was recorded in damage report book against the complainant-Ram Karan, by the appellant by stating that he had cut a tree, a value of which was assessed as Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.1602-SB of 2003 3 ` 800/-.

The challan was already filed against the complainant.

Learned counsel also submits that there was no occasion to ask for any gratification of ` 500/- as a value of Keekar tree was assessed as ` 800/-.

Learned counsel also submits that the case of the prosecution was not supported by any independent witness.

Said PW-4 Rampal, while appearing, had clearly stated that he never joined investigation of the case and no currency note was handed over by anyone to the appellant in his presence.

He has also stated that nothing was recovered from possession of the appellant in his presence.

Learned counsel also submits that neither PW-3 nor PW-6 heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant.

The only eye-witness of the alleged occurrence Rampal himself has not supported the case of the prosecution.

Learned counsel further submits that there are major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses which shows that the judgment of conviction has been passed contrary to the evidence on record.

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the judgment of trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence, no interference is required.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

Admittedly, the appellant was posted as Forest Guard in the area, where, Keekar tree was cut by the complainant.

Thereafter, a complaint was made by the appellant on 25.05.2001 and the value of Keekar tree was assessed as ` 800/-.

It was specifically mentioned in the entry made by the appellant that Ram Karan had cut a Keekar tree No.15 having girth of 110 cms., the value of which was assessed as ` 800/-.

Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.1602-SB of 2003 4 Thereafter, the complaint was made against the present appellant that he had demanded ` 500/- as illegal gratification.

On the basis of complaint made by the complainant, a raiding party was constituted and recovery has been shown of currency notes of ` 500/- from the pocket of the appellant.

PW-4 Rampal, who was an independent witness and was associated at the time of raid, has stated that he never joined the investigation of the case and no currency notes were handed over to the appellant by any person in his presence and nothing was recovered from possession of the appellant in his presence.

The trial Court has not appreciated the statement of PW-4 Rampal.

In cross-examination, he has denied of having made any statement before the police but has admitted his signatures on Exhibits `PE' and `PF', however he has stated that his signatures were obtained on blank paper.

On perusal of statements of PWs, it is clear that there are discrepancies in the statements of R.S.Verma-S.D.M., Mahendergarh and Hukam Singh, DSP regarding recovery of currency notes.

As per statement of S.D.M-R.S.Verma, the currency note was recovered from the pocket of shirt of the accused, whereas, as per statement of DSP, the notes were recovered from the identity card which was in the hand of the accused.

It has also been mentioned in the statement of DW-1 Tara Chand, Deputy Ranger that the challan was already filed against the complainant and even the value of Keekar tree was assessed as ` 800/-.

Thereafter, there was no occasion for demanding any illegal gratification of ` 500/-.

It is clear from the facts as mentioned above that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by statement of independent witness, who was associated at the time of raid.

Said eye-witness PW-4 Rampal was declared hostile as he has not supported the case of the prosecution.

No doubt, the official witnesses cannot be disbelieved but Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Appeal No.1602-SB of 2003 5 there are contradictions in the statements of PW-3 R.S Verma, S.D.M.Mahendergarh and PW-6-Hukam Singh, DSP.

Otherwise also, the complaint was already made against the complainant which was recorded in the damage report book and value of the tree was assessed as ` 800/-.

Subsequently, there was no occasion for him to give any bribe of ` 500/- as the difference of amount was only ` 300/-.

After presentation of challan in the complaint against the complainant, there was no occasion not to initiate any proceedings against the complainant as the action was already taken which was in the jurisdiction of the appellant.

It can be said that the action was already taken by the appellant against the complainant and there was no justification to demand money subsequently.

On perusal of statement of witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial Court has not taken into consideration the statement of PW-4 Rampal who was an independent witness and also the statement of DW-1 Tara Chand, Deputy Ranger, who has proved the entry of the complaint made in the damage report book by the accused appellant and the same was proved as Exhibit `DA'.

Accordingly, in view of the facts as mentioned above, there is merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and the judgment of trial Court is not based on proper appreciation of evidence as available on record.

As such, the present petition is allowed and the judgment passed by Special Judge, Narnaul is set aside and surety/bail bonds furnished by the appellant are discharged.

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 03.07.2014 JUDGE gurpreet Kaur Gurpreet 2014.07.24 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document