Krishana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

1988"] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment 2

for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of

payment of fine, the accused shall suffer further simple

imprisonment for two months.

2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as

under:-

2.1] Krishna Ram - accused-appellant herein in the year

1991 was posted as Patwari and was Incharge of the Revenue

Circle 84 RBB Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

On 20.03.1991, Gurmukh Singh-complainant [PW-2], resident

of 85, RB visited the Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau

(SB) Ganganagar Post and submitted an application to Hazari

Lal [PW-8], Inspector Chowki Incharge in which he stated that

he was holder of land measuring 10 bighas 5 biswas in Chak

85 RB and land measuring 12.5 bighas in Lakha Tiba on the

basis of temporary cultivation lease. He wanted to convert his

temporary lease into permanent lease for which purpose he

filled in the requisite application form (Exhibit P7) and

presented the same before Shri Jagmal Singh [PW-9], the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, who in turn marked it

to the Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar and handed over the original 3

application to the complainant. The Tehsildar in turn marked

the application to the Patwari concerned.

2.2] On 18.03.1991, PW-2 approached the appellant (Patwari)

and presented the application (Ex.-P-7) to him for giving his

report thereon. The complainant alleged that the appellant

had demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe money for giving

favourable report in his (complaints) favour in regard to

allotment of the lands to him on permanent lease holders

rights. PW-2 pleaded to the appellant that he did not possess

enough money to meet his demand whereupon the appellant

asked the complainant to come to his house with an amount

of Rs.500/- instead of Rs.1,000/- as demanded by him on an

earlier occasion. It was also stated by the complainant that he

was not willing to pay the bribe money to the appellant and

wanted to get him apprehended by the police for demanding

illegal gratification and it was with that sole object that the

complaint (Ex.-P-13) came to be presented to PW-8 Hazari Lal-

Inspector, Bureau Incharge of Chowki, Ganganagar. On

receipt of the complaint of the complainant, PW-8 summoned

Askaran (PW-1) and Raje Ram (PW-3) employees of UIT, 4

Ganganagar, who were introduced to the complainant and

they were apprised of complete gist of the complaint. Both the

witnesses had voluntarily agreed to participate in the trap

proceedings proposed to be laid against the appellant. Four

currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and two notes of

Rs.50/- denomination, i.e. total amounting to Rs.500/-, were

arranged by the complainant for payment to the appellant.

The Bureau employees then treated the currency notes with

phenolphthalein powder which were kept in the left side

pocket of the complainant's shirt who was instructed not to

touch the money any more and the same shall be handed over

to the appellant on his demand. The complainant was asked

to give a signal to the members of the trapping party soon

after payment of money to the appellant by putting his hand

on his turban. The witnesses were also instructed to stand

close by to the complainant to enable the police party to

apprehend the appellant red handed. Thereafter, the trapping

party reached near Gulbadiwali Haveli at Raisinghnagar where

the appellant was residing. The appellant at that time was

sitting with two or three persons in his house, but the 5

complainant asked him to come outside the room on the first

floor of the house and the members of the trapping party

remained standing downstairs. Thereafter, upon signal being

received from the complainant, the members of the trapping

party immediately reached near to the appellant where PW-8

questioned him in the presence of the witnesses present there

if he had accepted Rs.500/- as bribe from

complainant Gurmukh Singh. The appellant's first stand was

that Gurmukh Singh had given him Rs.500/- for

making a favourable report on his application for allotment of

land to him, but then hesitatingly he turned around and

replied that Rs.500/- was paid to him as loan amount. The

complainant reiterated and reasserted that on demand made

by the appellant, he had given Rs.500/- as an illegal

gratification to the appellant for doing his work. He stated

that the appellant had accepted the amount and after

counting the currency notes he pocketed them in left side

pocket of his bushirt. The police constable immediately held

both the wrists of the appellant and that appellant's hands

turned pink when dipped in sodium carbonate solution, as a 6

result whereof the solution also turned pink colour. The

appellant was asked to take out the money from the pocket of

his bushirt and on counting the currency notes they were

found to be the same which were paid by the complainant to

the appellant. On personal search of the appellant, a sum of

Rs.227/- was also found in his pocket, besides Rs.500/- the

bribe money. The bushirt of the appellant was dipped in the

solution of sodium carbonate which also turned into pink

colour and was taken into possession as an evidence. The

relevant record was also taken in possession from the

appellant. Site Plan was prepared after conducting search of

the room occupied by the appellant. The materials seized as

evidence were kept in the Malkhana. FIR (Ex.P-16) was

prepared and registered against the appellant in the police

station at Head Office at Jaipur. The sample bottles were sent

to Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur, and on receipt of the report

(Exhibit P-17) and after completion of all the required

formalities, charge sheet was presented against the appellant

in the court.

7

2.3] The appellant during the trial denied the charges and

claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as ten

witnesses and produced 19 documents and 12 articles as

exhibits. The appellant in his statement recorded under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied

his involvement in the commission of the offence. He pleaded

that there was some dispute regarding felling of a tree from

the field of one Gorai which on spot inspection of the appellant

was found lying in the field of the complainant and, therefore,

it was in this background that an attempt was made by the

complainant to involve the appellant in a false case. He,

examined Ramchandra (DW-1) in his defence and got two

documents exhibited as D-1 and D-2.

3. Learned trial judge, on analysis of the entire oral and

documentary evidence on record, found the appellant not

guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with

Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly acquitted

him.

4. The State of Rajasthan, being dissatisfied with the

acquittal of the appellant, preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 8

673 of 1999 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench. By judgment and order dated 22.12.2000, a learned

Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the order of the

trial court and held the appellant guilty of offences under

Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C.

Act of 1988 and imposed the aforesaid sentence upon him.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us by way of

this appeal.

6. Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant,

contended that the judgment of the High Court reversing the

well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court is

erroneous in law being against the well-established principles

with regard to interference in appeal under Section 378 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. In support of the contentions,

reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in Kalyan

Singh v.. State of M.P. [(2006) 13 SCC 303] and T.

Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401]. We have

gone through the said decisions. There cannot be any quarrel

with the settled propositions of law that if on appraisal of the

evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances 9

it is found that two views are possible one as held by the trial

court for acquitting the accused and the other for convicting

the accused, in such a situation, the rule of prudence should

guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal

made by the trial court. It is also equally well-settled that

where the material on record leads to a sole and inescapable

conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal

will call for interference by the appellate court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended

that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant had made any demand of

bribe from the complainant as alleged by him and therefore,

the presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C.

Act, 1988 has wrongly been applied by the High Court against

the appellant and in favour of the prosecution. In support of

this submission, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court

in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401]. This

Court in the above cited case, while considering the case of

the accused for offences under Section Ss. 5(1)(d) read with

Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, has held 10

that the accused had offered reasonable and probable

explanation based on the evidence that the money was

accepted by him as lease rent arrears and not illegal

gratification.

8. In the light of the above settled propositions of law, we

have made independent scrutiny of the evidence in the

present case to find out whether the High Court's order of

conviction of the appellant can be sustained or not.

9. Gurumukh Singh (PW-2) has proved on record that on

demand of the appellant, he had paid Rs.500/- to him as

illegal gratification, for recording favourable report on the

application marked to the appellant by Tehsildar for allotment

of permanent lease to the complainant. Four currency notes

of Rs.100/- denomination and two currency notes of Rs.50/-

denomination were handed over to the appellant by PW-2 on

the day of the incident, which before giving to him were

treated by the trapping party with phenolphthalein powder.

The trapping party on search of the pocket of bushirt of the

appellant recovered those currency notes from his personal

possession. At the first instance, the appellant had admitted 11

his guilt, but recovering swiftly he changed his stand and

stated to the Investigating Officer that the money was handed

over to him by the complainant as loan amount on behalf of

DW-1. It is the evidence of DW-1 that except the money in

question no money transaction ever took place between him

and the appellant. Thus, it is proved that a sum of Rs.500/-

was recovered by the officials of Anti-Corruption Bureau [for

short "ACB"] from the bushirt pocket of the appellant on the

day of incident. Once it is proved that the money was

recovered from the possession of the appellant, the burden of

presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C.

Act, 1988 shifts upon the appellant, which he could not rebut

through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by

adducing reliable and convincing evidence to prove that DW-1

advanced Rs.500/- as loan to the appellant through the

complainant. DW-1 Ram Chandra, has not given any reason

why he chose the complainant alone to deliver a sum of

Rs.500/- to the appellant on the day when he was

apprehended by the Anti Corruption Team. In these

circumstances, the High Court has rightly concluded that the 12

explanation given by the appellant was not probable and

reasonable. The currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered

from the possession of the appellant which were got treated

with phenolphthalein powder by PW Hazari Lal-Inspector in

the presence of the witnesses. The members of the trapping

party alongwith complainant went to the house of the

appellant at Raisingh Nagar where the bribe money was

handed over to the appellant by the complainant. PW-8

introduced himself to the appellant and asked him if he had

accepted bribe money from the complainant, the appellant

replied that it was not bribe money but the amount of loan

repayment. The complainant has categorically stated that it

was not loan amount but bribe money demanded by the

appellant from him. The appellant took out the currency

notes of Rs.500/- from the pocket of his bushirt in presence of

the witnesses. The numbers of the notes recovered had

matched with the numbers noted in the ACB office before the

complainant handed over them to the appellant. The bushirt

worn by the appellant was washed in sodium carbonate

solution and same turned into pink colour. The evidence of 13

the complainant is found to be consistent and impeachable

regarding the demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant as bribe

money for giving favourable report in regard to the grant of

permanent lease holder rights of the land to the complainant.

His evidence is supported by contemporaneous documents

prepared by the Investigating Officer before the money was

delivered to the appellant. The complainant empathetically

denied the suggestion of the appellant that Rs.500/- was sent

to the appellant by DW-1 as repayment of the loan amount.

The complainant, the Investigating Officer and other witnesses

who were present when the appellant was caught red handed

by the Anti Corruption Team have been cross-examined at

length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted

from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are

not truthful witnesses. They have given reliable and consistent

version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.

10. In State represented by Inspector of Police,

Pudukottai, T.N. v. A. Parthiban [(2006) 11 SCC 473] this

Court has held that every acceptance of illegal gratification,

whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by 14 Section 7 of the Act. But, if the acceptance of an illegal

gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public

servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1)(d) of the

P.C. Act.

11. Having regard to the entire evidence discussed above and

having carefully and closely considered the judgments of the

trial court and the High Court, it appears that the view taken

by the trial court drawn on the evidence on record is found to

be unreasonable and perverse and the High Court has rightly

interfered with the order of acquittal and convicted the

appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13

(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, instead of

imposing separate sentence upon the appellant under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, has in his wisdom

imposed sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of Rs. 500/- upon the appellant under Section 13

(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, the

appellant shall undergo two months further simple

imprisonment.

15

13. No other point has been raised by the appellant. We,

thus, find no merit and substance in any of the submissions

made on behalf of the appellant.

14. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no merit

in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. The accused appellant is on bail, granted by this Court by

order dated 30th March, 2001. He shall be taken into custody

forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the substantive

sentence.

........................................J. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J. (B. Sudershan Reddy) New Delhi, March 17, 2009.

16