Allowed

Ramesh Chand v. Hy.State

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2014CRA-S/1401/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against conviction and sentence for corruption. The High Court held that since the complainant and shadow witness turned hostile and could not prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the conviction was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and the accused acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order set aside; accused acquitted; bail bonds and surety bonds discharged.

Ramesh Chand Vs Hy.State — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRA No.1401-SB of 2003 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 12.11.2014

Ramesh Chand

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana

.....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj and Mr.Lokesh Sharma, Advocates for the appellant Mr.G.S.Sandhu, Addl.A.G. Haryana

¶10

¶11

KULDIP SINGH, J.

¶12

By this order, I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1401-SB of 2003 against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2003/21.7.2003, passed by the learned Special Judge, Jagadhri, vide which the appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo RI for six months.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that on 6.2.2001, Jagdish Kumar complainant moved a complaint (Ex.PE) before Phool Chand, Inspector Vigilance Bureau, alleging that he intended to obtain a loan of Rs.20,000/- for opening a grocery shop from

¶14

GOPAL KRISHAN 2014.11.20 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶15

CRA No.1401-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam (in short, the Nigam). He had been making repeated visits to the office but his loan was not being sanctioned. On 5.2.2001, he went to the office, where Ramesh Kumar Field Officer of the Nigam had demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe for getting the loan sanctioned. However, after negotiation, the matter was settled at Rs.1000/-. Jagdish Kumar stated that he is a poor man and does not want to pay the bribe. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a case at State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala. Shri I.P.Bishnoi, City Magistrate was joined in the raid. The police completed the formalities of handing over one currency note of Rs.500/- denomination and five currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, after putting their initials on each note and treated them with phenolphthalein powder and directed the complainant to hand over the same to accused. Ashok Kumar was shadow witness with the police party. Accordingly, the complainant visited the office of the accused and after handing over tainted notes amounting to Rs.1000/- to the accused, signalled the shadow witness, who in turn, signalled the raiding party. The police party then conducted the raid. Tainted notes were recovered from the accused. Hand wash was also done, on which colour of the solution went pink. The loan file was also taken into possession.

¶18

After investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused was charge sheeted under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty.

¶19

GOPAL KRISHAN 2014.11.20 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶20

CRA No.1401-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶21

- 3 -

¶22

In support, of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Raj Kumar Singla, Superintendent HSFDC, PW2 Vijay Kumar, Record Keeper, PW3 Tejinder Kumar ASI, PW4 Mulakh Raj Constable, PW5 Constable Mehroof Ali, PW6 Constable Joginder Singh, PW7 Ashok Kumar, Shadow Witness, PW8 Jagdish Kumar complainant, PW9 Inder Pal Bishnoi, City Magistrate, Narnaul and PW10, Phool Chand, Inspector.

¶23

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded that Jagdish Kumar complainant had given his loan application to Diary Clerk on 20.10.1999. The loan case was processed by the Field Officer and District Manager, who sanctioned the loan and delivered the cheque to the loanee on 6.2.2001. The accused took the plea that he had no concern with the processing of loan file nor it was his duty to grant loan. He claimed that he never demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the loanee.

¶24

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused and going through the file, learned Special Judge held the accused guilty with the offence under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him as stated above.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have carefully gone the file.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this case two material witnesses, namely, Jagdish Kumar complainant as well as shadow witness Ashok Kumar had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He has referred to the statement

¶27

GOPAL KRISHAN 2014.11.20 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

CRA No.1401-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶29

- 4 -

¶30

of Jagdish Kumar (PW8), who had stated that one day he had gone to obtain a cheque of loan amount, the police met him there and obtained his signatures on certain papers. Jagdish Kumar further stated that he did not know the accused present in the Court and the accused never demanded illegal gratification from him to secure loan nor he paid him any amount. However, he claimed that he had seen the accused in the office of Nigam once or twice. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was put to crossexamination by the learned Public Prosecutor. In crossexamination, he denied to have moved any complaint (Ex.PE) before Inspector State Vigilance Bureau. However, he admitted his signatures on various memos.

¶31

Shadow witness Ashok Kumar, while appearing as PW7, also did not support the case and stated that on the said day, Jagdish Kumar had met him outside the grain market of Jagadhri and had obtained his signatures on certain papers. Nothing had happened in his presence. Cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor failed to extract anything favourable from the witness. However, the City Magistrate, Inder Pal Bishnoi (PW9)

¶32

proved that on receipt of signal from the shadow witness, the accused was apprehended and tainted currency notes, which were handed over to the accused in his presence were recovered from the accused. He also proved the other formalities. Inspector Phool Chand (PW10) also proved receipt of complaint, conducting of raid and recovery of tainted notes from the accused.

¶33

GOPAL KRISHAN 2014.11.20 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶34

CRA No.1401-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶35

- 5 -

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in this case, the demand and acceptance is not proved. Since the complainant and shadow witness turned hostile, therefore, at the time of the alleged crime, the demand of illegal gratification by the accused is not proved, which was only known to the said witnesses. It has been argued that the City Magistrate and the Police party were standing at a distance. Primarily, it was Jagdish Kumar, who was talking to the accused and had the primary knowledge as to whether at the time of handing over of tainted notes, accused had actually demanded the bribe and had voluntarily accepted the same. Ashok Kumar was present at some distance and as per prosecution case, he received signal from Jagdish Kumar, who gave further signal to the raiding party. At the most Ashok Kumar might have seen or heard something and had some knowledge as to what happened between Jagdish Kumar and the accused. Ashok Kumar had also not stated that at the time of alleged crime, the accused had demanded illegal gratification and had voluntarily accepted the same from Jagdish Kumar.

¶37

I am of the view that since the complainant and shadow witness Ashok Kumar turned hostile, therefore, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused is not proved. It being so, the other evidence in the shape of recovery of tainted notes from the accused was of corroborative nature. Therefore, conviction of accused under Section 7 of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed, the

¶38

GOPAL KRISHAN 2014.11.20 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶39

CRA No.1401-SB of 2003 (O&M)

¶40

- 6 -

¶41

impugned judgment and order are set aside and accused –appellant stands acquitted of the charges framed against him. His bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.

¶42

12.11.2014 gk

¶43

( Kuldip Singh ) Judge

¶44

GOPAL KRISHAN 2014.11.20 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Ramesh Chand v. Hy.State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand v. Hy.State

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

Matadin and Anr. Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs Dhan Singh and Ors.

Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Pb,Etc

Balwinder Singh Vs Amar Singh and Ors.

Som Nath & Ors. Vs Om Parkash

Punjab Financial Corporation Vs M/S Pine Products Industries and Anr.