Allowed

Manmohan Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2014CRA-S/687/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convict challenging acquittal is acquitted under disproportionate assets charge as defence evidence outweighing prosecution's burden despite trial court below rejecting evidence of defence witnesses calling loans for house construction.

What did the court decide?

Charge regarding unaccounted money for construction found not established; accused acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds discharged.

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Haryana — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRA-S-687-SB-2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.05.2014

Manmohan Singh

......... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

....... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL

¶9

Present:Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes/No

¶13

M. JEYAPAUL, J. (Oral)

¶14

Accused -Manmohan Singh, who was convicted under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the trial Court has challenged the same before this Court.

¶15

One of the charges was that he had acquired property disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period 1985 to 31.10.1999, when he was serving as Naib Tehsildar at Gurgaon.

¶16

As regards the scope of this appeal, suffice it to say, the prosecution has come out with an allegation that accused Manmohan Singh spent a sum of 8 lacs towards the construction of his house. But during the course of investigation, it came to light that the accused spent a sum of 4,31,158/- for putting up construction of his house. Out of the said amount he could not account for a sum of ` 73,997/-, which was spent for putting up construction of his house. In sum and substance, it is the case of

¶17

the prosecution that the accused could not explain a sum of ` 73,997/Satyawan 2014.05.26 15:49 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRA-S-687-SB-2006

¶20

spent by him for construction of his house.

¶21

The trial Court having rejected the defence evidence held that the accused could not explain a sum of ` 73,997/- spent by him for construction of his house.

¶22

Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Manmohan Singh would submit that the Investigating Agency believed the version of the father-in-law of the appellant that he lent a sum of one lac to the appellant for putting up construction, whereas the Investigating Agency found fault with the mobilisation of 50,000/from Rajinder Singh and an equal amount from one Bijender. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of DW-2 Rajbir Kataria and the evidence of DW-3 Rajinder Singh would submit that the amount of ` 73,997/- spent by the appellant had been borrowed from DW-2 and DW-3 for making construction of his house. It is his submission that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3 in the background of the admission made by PW-15, who was the Investigating Officer in this case. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant who has explained the entire amount spent on construction, is entitled to acquittal.

¶23

Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently submit, drawing attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the trial Court, that the trial Court, having completely scanned the entire evidence on record, chose to reject the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3

¶24

Satyawan 2014.05.26 15:49 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶25

-3-

¶26

CRA-S-687-SB-2006

¶27

and accept the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. DW-2 & DW-3 had been brought before the trial Court by the appellant only to tow the defence set up by him. It is his submission that the trial Court has rightly rejected the defence evidence and convicted the accused.

¶28

Let me first refer to the evidence of PW15-Mohammad Yunus, Inspector who investigated the case. During the course of cross-examination, he had categorically deposed that the appellant during the course of investigation not only contended that he borrowed a sum of one lac from his father in law but also borrowed a sum of 50,000/- from one Rajinder Singh and an equal amount from one Bijender. It is his admission that both Rajinder Singh and Bijender were produced before him with the bank pass books in their name and other relevant records to demonstrate the borrowal made by the appellant. PW-15 also had admitted that the construction of the house was not complete, inasmuch as the plaster work was not yet done.

¶29

From the admissions made by PW-15, the appellant could demonstrate that he had produced not only his father-in-law but also Rajinder Singh and Bijender from whom he borrowed money for putting up construction. The appellant also had taken efforts to produce the bank pass books of those persons to strengthen his version of borrowal. For the reasons best known, PW-15 interrogated only father-in-law of the appellant but failed to interrogate Bijender and Rajinder Singh who had been brought before him with their bank

¶30

Satyawan 2014.05.26 15:49 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶31

-4-

¶32

CRA-S-687-SB-2006

¶33

pass books. In this context, the trial Court has made relevant observations that the Investigating Officer, who chose to accept the version of the father-in-law could have also accepted the version of those two persons, namely, Rajinder Singh and Bijender as regards the loan transaction.

¶34

In the background of the above admissions made by PW15 in favour of the appellant, let me now refer to the evidence of DW2 and DW-3, which strengthens the defence set up by the appellant. Of course, one Bijender, who was brought before PW-15 for interrogation was not examined by the appellant as a defence witness. Instead, one Rajbir Kataria was examined as DW-2. He had deposed that a sum of ` 30,000/- was borrowed by the appellant during the check period and the same was returned by the appellant after two years by way of cheque. He has also stated that the cheque issued in his favour was encashed through his account in the bank.

¶35

DW-3 Rajinder Singh having produced his pass book deposed that a sum of 30,000/- at the first instance and a sum of 20,000/- for the second time, were lent to the appellant. The pass book produced by DW-3 Rajinder Singh completely corroborates his oral assertion. If the appellant had chosen to introduce for the first time Rajinder Singh, there is some chance for doubting his version. The admission of PW-15 would go to show that DW-3 was in fact produced before PW-15 for interrogation. The pass book which he possessed, was also produced during interrogation. Therefore, in my view, the evidence of DW-3 cuts the very root of the prosecution

¶36

Satyawan 2014.05.26 15:49 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶37

-5-

¶38

CRA-S-687-SB-2006

¶39

version.

¶40

In the light of admission made by PW-15 and the evidence of DW-3, I find that the testimony of DW-2 cannot be simply discarded. Unless he had encashed the cheque payment made by the appellant, he would not have deposed so in the court.

¶41

Reverting back to the evidence of PW-15, I find that the house constructed by the appellant was not complete at the time when the case was taken up for investigation by PW-15 inasmuch as plastering work was not complete but unfortunately the cost of construction had been assessed by the Investigating Agency based on the presumption that the construction of the house was complete.

¶42

The defence evidence referred to above, might not have established beyond reasonable doubt that a sum of 73,997/- was spent by the appellant for construction by mobilising loan from two acquaintances. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused is not bound to establish beyond reasonable doubt the defence set up by him. If the accused could create a doubt in the case of the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence, the benefit of doubt created by the accused will have to be conferred on him. In my view, the accused-appellant having adduced the above referred evidence created a doubt in the case of the prosecution that the appellant put up construction with the disproportionate wealth to the tune of73,997/-.

¶43

Therefore, giving benefit of doubt to the accused, it is held that charge as against the accused that he put up construction

¶44

Satyawan 2014.05.26 15:49 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶45

-6-

¶46

CRA-S-687-SB-2006

¶47

with the unaccounted money to the tune of ` 73,998/- is found not established. Consequently, the accused-appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The bail bonds executed by the accused-

¶48

appellant shall stand discharged.

¶49

Appeal is allowed.

¶50

May 14, 2014. sp

¶51

(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE

¶52

Satyawan 2014.05.26 15:49 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

Manmohan Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Neha and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Monika Sharma & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Ravinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Deepa Jain and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bhuvnesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.