Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Ramkala Singh

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022GOVA/2349/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the Government Appeal to refuse leave to appeal against a special court's acquittal. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's decision to acquit the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to lack of supporting witnesses and trustworthy prosecution testimony.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is refused. The application seeking leave to appeal and the appeal are dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Ramkala Singh — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2349 of 1996 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Ramkala Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Shanker Mishra,A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the Stateappellant and perused the records of the present appeal and the lower court records.

¶6

The present Government Appeal is listed for grant of leave to appeal and admission.

¶7

This present Govt Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.08.1996 passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Court, Meerut in Criminal Case No.7 of 1992, (State vs. Ramkala) whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted by the trial Court for offence under Section 7/13 (1)(D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶8

The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.08.1991 Nigesh Chand Sharma, the original complainant had given a written complaint to the S.P. Vigilance, Meerut alleging that he is resident of L-342 Shastrinagar, Meerut which belongs to his elder brother. He wanted to purchase a separate house for himself and went to a property dealer who informed him that some plots are on sale near Golbhata in village Sofipur Pilana. On enquiry, he came to know that plot nos.244, 245, 247, 250 are available for sale and belong to one Noor Mohammad of the village. On 8.8.1991, he applied for the copies of Khasra and Khatauni of the said plots before the Naib Tehsildar, Meerut. The said officer told him to

¶9

(2)

¶10

contact the Lekhpal of the area Ramkala Singh (respondent herein) and returned the application with his endorsement which was to be given to the Lekhpal. On the same day he met the Lekhpal and gave the application on which the Naib Tehsildar had ordered for issuance of required copies. The Lekhpal told him that copies will be issued only if the complainant either agrees to give a portion of the land to him or to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe. The complainant tried to persuade the Lekhpal stating that demand of money was too much but he did not agree. He was then forced to pay Rs.800/- on that day and the remaining amount of Rs.1,200/was to be paid after 10-12 days. On 19.08.1991, Lekhpal came back to his house and asked him to pay remaining amount of Rs.1,200/-. The complainant told him to meet him on the next day in a hotel situated near Golabhata at 1 p.m. where he will come with money which was agreed by the Lekhpal. The complainant did not wanted to pay any money as bribe to Lekhpal and wants the said Lekhpal to be caught red-handed taking bribe because the said Lekhpal is a very bad official who does not work without taking bribe.

¶11

The case was entrusted by the S.P. Vigilance to Inspector Babu Lal Sharma. The Inspector talked to the complainant and verified his written complaint dated 20.8.1991 and told him to bring Rs.1,200/- which was to be given as bribe to the Lekhpal at 1 p.m. at the hotel near Golbhata. Along with Inspector Babu Lal Sharma, Inspector R.P. Dubey and A.K. Kaushik accompanied by Constable Laxman Singh and Ganu Singh and the complainant went to the place of occurrence in a Government vehicle which was driven by Satyapal Singh. They reached the crossing of Company Laghat at 12.30 p.m. Two public witnesses namely

¶12

(3)

¶13

Rajendra Nayyar and Chandrakant Sharma were taken by them who were informed about the trap. The complainant Nigesh Chand Sharma gave Rs.1,200/- to the Vigilance Officer who noted down their numbers and made initials on each note. The notes were then treated with phenolphthalien powder and were returned to the complainant Nigesh Chand Sharma with the direction that the same notes be given to Lekhpal Ramkala as bribe. The Vigilance Officer washed his hands in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink and hand wash was kept in a bottle which was sealed and recovery memo was prepared. The trap party was instructed of further steps to be taken and then they came to the Golbhata in a Government Jeep. They left the Jeep there and went to the tea stall of Mohanlal Saini. Members of the trap party sat on different benches at the hotel/tea stall. At about 2.15 p.m. Lekhpal Ramkala came to the hotel and sat near the complainant. He asked the complainant as to whether he has brought the remaining money to which the complainant said ‘yes’, after which Ramkala showed him a bag and told him that he has brought the register and the application. The complainant took out the notes and gave to him and demanded the copies immediately. Ramkala started counting the notes after which Vigilance Officer approached, introduced himself and arrested him in the presence of witnesses along with said notes which were taken in custody and were compared with the memo which tallied with it and they were sealed. The hands of complainant and accused were washed in two different glasses, containing sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. The said washes were kept in separate bottles and sealed at the spot and recovery memo was prepared. A written report was given at Police Station Daurala.

¶14

(4)

¶15

The investigation of the case was given to Inspector Vinod Kumar Sharma of the Vigilance Department who conducted the same and submitted charge sheet against the accused.

¶16

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶17

In the trial Inspector Babu Lal Sharma was examined as P.W.1, complainant Nigesh Chand Sharma was examined as P.W.2, Constable Kanti Prasad who prepared the Chik FIR was examined as P.W.3., Chandrakant Sharma who was the independent eye witness was examined as P.W.4, Constable Ram Autar Tyagi was examined as P.W.5 who had taken the bottles containing the hand wash to the Chemical Laboratory, Agra, Inspector Vinod Kumar Sharma was examined as P.W.6, Rameshwar Singh, Assistant Kanoongo who verified the copies of Khasra was examined as P.W.7, Nikhul Chand Shukla, S.D.M. Sadar, Meerut who granted sanction for prosecution was examined as P.W.8, Inspector Arun Kumar Kaushik, member of trap party was examined as P.W.9.

¶18

The trial court vide judgement and order dated 24.08.1996 acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him under Section 7/13 (1)(D) Prevention of Corruption Act. The present appeal is thus filed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State-appellant argued that the approach of the trial court is wholly incorrect and the findings as arrived are not supportive by cogent reasons. It is argued that the accused was arrested from the spot with notes which were taken by him as bribe. The police personnel being members of the team were examined before the trial court. The complainant Nigesh Chand Sharma also supported the prosecution case who stated of

¶20

(5)

¶21

money being given to accused and he had applied for copies of Khasra and Khatauni.

¶22

This Court has perused the judgement and order of the trial court and the lower court records. The view taken by the trial court while acquitting the accused-respondent are:-

¶23

There were two independent witnesses being Rajendra Nayyar and Chandrakant Sharma accompanying the trap party. Only Chandrakant Sharma could be produced before the trial court. The other witness Rajendra Nayyar could not be produced before the court despite repeated summons. Chandrakant Sharma did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

¶24

2.) There is no public witness to support the prosecution case in spite of the place being a public place being a hotel as per the prosecution case, the raiding team had sat on the benches and the accused along with complainant also sat there where money was exchanged.

¶25

3.) The fact that the accused demanded a piece of land or Rs.2,000/- as bribe for issuance of Khasra and Khatauni is not trustworthy as copies of Khasra and Khatauni can be obtained easily on payment of required fees fixed.

¶26

4.) There are material contradictions in the testimony of P.W.1, 2 and 9 which makes their testimony not worthy reliance.

¶27

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court in

¶28

(6)

¶29

acquitting the accused-respondents does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The trial court was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶30

The leave to appeal is as such refused.

¶31

The application seeking leave to appeal by this Court and the appeal both are dismissed, accordingly.

¶32

File be consigned to records.

¶33

The office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment along with the trial court records to the trial court concerned for necessary information and follow-up action.

¶34

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶35

Order Date :- 27.09.2022

¶36

Gaurav

¶37

Digitally signed by GAURAV KULSHRESTHA Date: 2022.10.15 12:49:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of U.P. v. Ramkala Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Ramkala Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akeel Shah @ Fafuta Vs State of U.P.

Rambalee Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Abdullah Vs State of U.P.

Krishnakant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Mihsra Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.