State Of Punjab v. Sant Parkash

T.P.S MANN, J. (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.1995 passed by Special Judge, Faridkot whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

According to the prosecution, the respondent, while being posted as SHO, Police Station, City Muktsar, demanded Rs. 10,000/- from complainant Mohinderpal as a motive or reward for releasing his brother Surinderpal, besides demanding Rs. 4,700/- as price of the stolen gold articles purchased by Surinderpal, who was arrested on 10.7.1992 in the theft case. At that time, the complainant was not carrying any money and promised to pay the demanded amount on the next day. The complainant then collected leaders of the goldsmith union and met Senior Superintendent of Police, who directed the complainant to submit his affidavit. Accordingly, the complainant submitted his affidavit and the Senior Superintendent of Police directed Superintendent of Police (H) to record his statement. On the basis of the affidavit submitted by the complainant, FIR No. 63 dated 7.8.1992 under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act was registered against the appellant at Police Station, City Muktsar.

On completion of investigation and presentation of challan, the respondent was charged for the aforementioned offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Mohinderpal, PW2 Surinderpal, PW3 Balraj, PW4 Pishori Lal and PW5 SI Jasbir Singh.

Despite giving of last opportunity to examine its remaining evidence, the prosecution failed to examine any other evidence and the trial Court was left with no other option but to close its evidence vide order dated 12.9.1995

The plea of the respondent during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C was of denial. According to him, Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot was annoyed with him and he had got a false case registered against him by putting pressure upon the PWs. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the allegations contained in the FIR and the evidence produced by the prosecution, did not attract the provisions of Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted of the charges against him.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence available on the record.

While appearing as PW1 Mohinderpal stated that the respondent had demanded Rs. 15,000/- from him for release of his brother Surinderpal. During his cross-examination, he admitted it to be correct that in his application/affidavit Ex.PB given to Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, he had mentioned that respondent had demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe. Similarly, PW2 Surinderpal deposed that the respondent had demanded Rs. 15,000/- from him. During his cross-examination, he was confronted with his statement Ex.PC made before the police, wherein it was not so recorded.

The prosecution evidence was also discrepant regarding the fact as to whether complainant Mohinderpal was all alone in the Police Station when the respondent had demanded bribe from him or whether he was accompanied by leaders of the goldsmith union. In Ex.PB, it was first stated by complainant Mohinderpal that he was all alone at the time of demand made by the respondent and, thereafter, in para 2 he stated that the leaders of the goldsmith union had requested the respondent to release Surinderpal from the police custody and at that time, demand of Rs. 10,000/- was made by the respondent.

It is also clear from the record that no theft case stood registered against PW2 Surinderpal for which complainant Mohinderpal could be asked to pay bribe for securing his release.

Despite being granted a number of opportunities, including one last opportunity, the prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer of the case before the trial Court. The respondent had been deprived of his valuable right to cross-examine him.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondent of the charges against him, were not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence. In any case, the view taken by the trial Court could have been possibly taken. Therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.