Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Both these appeals are directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 25.9.2009 passed by Special Judge, Mansa, vide which appellants-accused Hardeep Singh and Gora Lal were held guilty in case FIR No.152 dated 13.11.2002 registered at Police Station, Sardulgarh for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) and were sentenced as under:

OffenceName of convictSentence

Under Section 7of the Act.Hardeep Singh.RI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default RI for three months.

Under Section 13(2) of the Act.Hardeep Singh.RI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default RI for three months.

Under Section 12 of the Act.Gora Lal.RI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default RI for three months.

However, both the substantive sentences in case of convict Hardeep Singh were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, put in a narrow compass, is as under:

Complainant Lachhu Ram is a resident of Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). He has a big land holding and is an agriculturist. Om Parkash, a businessman at Sardulgarh is his nephew. On 3.8.2002, complainant Lachhu Ram had received information that his nephew Om Parkash had been arrested from his house by the police. On receipt of this information, the complainant alongwith his brother Balbir Singh reached Police Station, Sardulgarh, District Mansa on 3.8.2002 at 9.00 a.m. by car driven by one Rakesh Kumar. ASI Hardeep Singh, investigating officer of the said case, met him. On his instructions, the complainant talked with Gora Lal, who explained to him that he was acting as a middleman in finalizing deals with the police. He assured to get the matter settled. A veiled threat was also held out to the complainant that the police was to arrest family members of Om Parkash showing them as members of one gang.

It is further the case of the prosecution that Gora Lal demanded Rs.2 lacs for payment of which amount the complainant expressed his inability and decided to contest the case in the court. On his refusal to part with a bribe amount of Rs.2 lacs, Gora Lal immediately went inside the Police Station and came back with ASI Hardeep Singh, who showed his displeasure and in anger, threatened to implicate both of them in the same case. He also got car of the complainant parked in the Police Station and also threatened to detain both of them and their driver in the police lock up. Gora Lal prevailed upon the complainant to give a second thought to the matter to avoid imminent problem for them in case of non-payment of bribe amount. Since neither the complainant nor his brother Balbir Singh had sufficient cash with them, ASI Hardeep Singh asked the complainant to arrange the money. The complainant went to collect the amount and met his relatives at Nohar and Sirsa and having collected Rs.1,80,000/- came back at about 10.00 a.m. on 4.8.2002 and went to the house of ASI Hardeep Singh alongwith Gora Lal and handed over cash of Rs.1,80,000/- to him. The amount was accepted by Hardeep Singh ASI as illegal gratification though it was less than Rs.2 lacs.

Later, the complainant decided to lodge criminal prosecution of ASI Hardeep Singh and Gora Lal and with that end in view, contacted SSP, Mansa and made his statement by way of affidavit (Ex.PA) stating all these facts whereupon an enquiry was conducted by SP (Headquarters) Hartej Singh. Report (Ex.PW6/A) became the basis of formal FIR (Ex.PA/2). On investigation and arrest of accused ASI HardeepSingh and Gora Lal, final report under Section 173 Cr.PC was submitted.

3. On finding a prima-facie case, accused Hardeep Singh was charge-sheeted under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act, whereas accused Gora Lal was charge-sheeted under Section 12 of the Act by the trial court vide order dated 2.8.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in all and has mainly relied upon the testimony of complainant Lachhu Ram (PW1), of his brother Balbir Singh (PW2), of Banwari Lal, close relative of the complainant (PW3) and of investigating officer SP Hartej Singh Sekhon (PW6).

5. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC when incriminating material having come in evidence of the prosecution against both the accused was put to them, they denying the prosecution case and alleging false implication, came up with their respective stands. Accused Hardeep Singh claimed that forged receipts and bills had been recovered from Om Parkash whereupon a case was registered against him under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It was further his case that Om Parkash was putting political pressure on him to cancel the case to which he had not agreed whereupon a false affidavit was moved by the complainant to take revenge against him. He denied having received any illegal gratification. Accused Gora Lal also denying the prosecution case against him, took up a stand that he was a witness in the case against Om Parkash in FIR No.94 dated 3.8.2002 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and had been falsely implicated merely to dissuade him from appearing as a witness against Om Parkash. In defence, HC Surjit Singh appeared as DW1.

6. Mainly relying upon the statements of complainant Lachhu Ram (PW1) and that of Banwari Lal (PW3) in the interface of statement of SP Hartej Singh Sekhon, (investigating officer) PW6, and rejecting the defence version which had been tried to be supported and sustained from the statement of HC Surjit Singh (DW1), the trial court came to a finding that the prosecution case stood proved beyond doubt against the accused and consequently, convicted and sentenced accused ASI Hardeep Singh and Gora Lal as has been mentioned in earlier part of this judgment.

7. Aggrieved with the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both the accused have preferred their separate appeals.

8. So far as accused-appellant Hardeep Singh is concerned, challenge to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been made on the following scores:

i. Witnesses of the prosecution are highly interested and they had explainable reasons to falsely depose against the appellant;

ii. Had version of the prosecution of bribing ASI Hardeep Singh, who was investigating officer in a case bearing FIR No.94 dated 3.8.2002 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, been true, ASI Hardeep Singh was not to obtain police remand (Ex.DC/1) of Om Parkash from the court on 4.8.2002;

iii. DDR (Ex.DA) of 3.8.2002 reveals that ASI Hardeep Singh alongwith other police officials had left the police station at 1.40 p.m. on 3.8.2002. Yet, another report (Ex.DB) of the same date i.e. 3.8.2002 reveals that ASI Hardeep Singh had returned to the Police Station at 8.30 p.m.;

iv. As per version of the prosecution in this case, Om Parkash was arrested on 3.8.2002 at 2.30 a.m. It is claimed that entire story of the prosecution thus, is false and fabricated as there was no question of complainant going to Police Station to secure his release at 9.00 a.m. when he had not even been arrested and his arrest is only at 2.30 p.m;

v. The prosecution case that money to be paid as bribe was collected from various friends and relatives by the complainant is not true because no such details are found in the affidavit (Ex.PA);

vi. The case against the appellant is a belated version which has been cooked up as a counter-blast to the case against Om Parkash; and,

vii. If the complainant was not willing to pay the allegedly demanded bribe amount, he was not to run here and there but was to get the raid conducted by intervention of the vigilance.

9. So far as accused Gora Lal is concerned, the following grounds have been taken by him for impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court against him:

i. From affidavit (Ex.PA) which forms foundation of the case of complainant Lachhu Ram, no offence against the appellant is made out as there are no allegations that any amount was paid to appellant Gora Lal for further transmission as bribe to co-appellant;

ii. Appellant Gora Lal is a resident of Amritsar, a far off place from Mansa. Co-appellant ASI Hardeep Singh was transferred from Ferozepur to Sardulgarh on 10.7.2002(Annexure PW7/A). In such a short time, the appellant could not have become close to co-appellant Hardeep Singh to act as a middleman particularly when there was no previous association between the two;

iii. There are no allegations that alleged bribe of Rs.1,80,000/- was paid to co-appellant Hardeep Singh in the presence of appellant Gora Lal;

iv. Even though the complainant had sufficient time to contact the Vigilance Department for making a complaint to get the accused caught red handed, no such steps were taken and instead FIR on complaint (Ex.PA) was lodged after a very long delay;

v. Evidence produced by the prosecution is inherently contradictory and is full of improvements revealing that the entire case is falsely fabricated against the appellant;

vi. Presence of Balbir Singh PW, who had allegedly accompanied complainant Lachhu Ram to Police Station, Sardulgarh is unbelievable as his statements before the police and the one made before the court are inherently contradictory. In the court, Balbir Singh PW when confronted with his alleged earlier statement recorded by the police during investigations, has denied having ever been told by ASI Hardeep Singh that appellant Gora Lal was his middleman and thus, should be contacted;

vii. Statement of Balbir Singh PW made in the court is not in conformity with the prosecution case that he had met the complainant even on 4.8.2002 when they had gone to ASI Hardeep Singh, as there were no means of previous contact between the appellant and complainant Lachhu Ram for the purpose of fixing the meeting with ASI Hardeep Singh. The appellant is cited as a witness against Om Parkash in FIR No.94 dated 3.8.2002 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC of Police Station, Sardulgarh. The present case was lodged to dissuade the appellant from appearing as a witness against Om Parkash;

viii. Alleged incident is of 3.8.2002. Ex.PA/1 is of 26.10.2002 whereas FIR was registered on 13.11.2002. The delay at every point is the result of deliberation and planning to falsely implicate the appellant; and,

ix. Documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in the interface of oculatory account has been misread by the trial court resulting in conviction of the appellant.

10. Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the records.

11. Statement on affidavit (Ex.PA) given by complainant Lachhu Ram (PW1), a resident of Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) to S.S.P. Mansa on 26.10.2002 forms the foundation of the prosecution case against the appellants. In his version against the appellants, he is apparently sustained and supported from the testimony of Balbir Singh (PW2). Support has also been sought by the prosecution from the testimony of Banwari Lal (PW3).

12. Contention of the appellant is that undue emphasis has been laid by the trial court on the highly interested and sweeping statement of complainant Lachhu Ram (PW1), of his close relation Balbir Singh (PW2) and of Banwari Lal (PW3) and that too without going into the factual context and the attending circumstances. It is claimed that the circumstances on record are so overwhelmingly militating against the prosecution case on every count that there is no scope of sustenance of the finding of conviction against the appellants. It is claimed that neither deposition of complainant nor of his associates, is above board nor the testimony of the official witnesses inspires confidence. In short, it is claimed that the complainant acting very shrewdly but untruthfully has involved appellant Hardeep Singh ASI merely because he had booked Om Parkash, nephew of the complainant and has roped in even appellant Gora Lal because he was cited as a prosecution witness against his nephew Om Parkash. Purpose of the complainant was to arm-twist both of them so that they were dissuaded from deposing against his nephew Om Parkash.

13. On behalf of appellant Gora Lal, it is claimed that he was neither having any connection with appellant Hardeep Singh nor was in any way connected with the complainant party and thus, was having no role to play in the alleged commission of crime. It is claimed that even when prosecution case is evaluated and analysed on the touchstone of probabilities, it gets scrambled like a pack of playing cards.

14. Counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, has urged that finding of conviction and sequelly order of sentence against the appellants has their foundation in overwhelming prosecution evidence which is beyond criticism.

15. Before rival claims of the parties are discussed any further, it would be appropriate to take into account factual matrix about which there is no dispute. Appellant Hardeep Singh was posted as ASI in Police Station, Sardulgarh. Om Parkash is nephew of complainant Lachhu Ram who is a businessman of Sardulgarh. The complainant on receiving information about arrest of his nephew had come to Police Station, Sardulgarh and had found that ASI Hardeep Singh (now appellant) was conducting the investigations. Appellant Gora Lal is neither from the police nor is a resident of jurisdictional area of Police Station, Sardulgarh. The prosecution version is that ASI Hardeep Singh had introduced complainant Lachhu Ram to appellant Gora Lal outside the Police Station as his confident and the one was authorised to effect dealings with the police. Bribe of Rs.2 lacs was demanded but the complainant could pay only Rs.1,80,000/- and that too after making borrowings from his relatives at Nohar (Rajasthan) and Sirsa (Haryana).

16. Notwithstanding placing of implicit reliance on the testimony of complainant Lachhu Ram (PW1) and of Banwari Lal (PW3) by the trial court, stand of the defence in contrast to the prosecution case, is to be considered on preponderance of evidence. So far as legal aspects are concerned, when entire evidence and attending circumstances are examined in this light, it transpires that defence version is not without legal significance.

17. Appellant ASI Hardeep Singh has been convicted under Section 7 as also under Section 13(2) of the Act, whereas appellant Gora Lal has been convicted under Section 12 of the Act. ASI Hardeep Singh was transferred vide order Ex.PW7/A dated 10.7.2002 passed by the competent authority. Appellant Gora Lal is a resident of Amritsar. There is nothing on record that Gora Lal had any previous acquaintance with the appellant or had come in contact with him. He is resident of a far off place.

18. The episode is of 3.8.2002. Having got information of arrest of Om Parkash, complainant Lachhu Ram accompanied by his brother Balbir Singh had contacted ASI Hardeep Singh, investigating officer of the case. Complainant Lachhu Ram states that when demand of bribe was raised by appellant Gora Lal for and on behalf of ASI Hardeep Singh, he did not have sufficient amount with him but since he wanted to get his nephew released, he sought time to collect the requisite funds and wanted to borrow money from his relatives and friends. He went back on 3.8.2002 and came back on 4.8.2002 with Rs.1,80,000/- which he allegedly handed over to ASI Hardeep Singh at his house in presence of appellant Gora Lal.

19. If we analyse the factual matrix, statement of complainant Lachhu Ram on affidavit Ex.PA is of 26.10.2002. FIR comes even much later i.e. on 13.11.2002. There is absolutely no plausible explanation of the prosecution on delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant.

20. It is also very strange that when the complainant right from the very start was unwilling to pay any amount as bribe to the appellant police official, why he did not approach the vigilance sleuths right at the beginning in order to get the appellant caught red handed.

21. Prosecution version also does not pass the test of scrutiny and probity. If version of the prosecution that Rs.1,80,000/- were paid to the investigating officer of the case against Om Parkash, nephew of the complainant, at 10.00 a.m. on 4.8.2002, then there was no question of seeking of police remand by the police. On the other hand, it remains a fact that the police insisted on police remand of Om Parkash and vide order of 4.8.2002 (Ex.DC/1) said Om Parkash had been remanded to police custody. Had bribe been paid to the appellant ASI Hardeep Singh, he was not to obtain the police remand.

22. Even when record of the Police Station, Sardulgarh is evaluated in the interface of record of the case registered against Om Parkash, there is so much of conflict that the prosecution case against the appellant does not inspire confidence.

23. Copy Ex.DA of report No.12 dated 3.8.2002 reveals that appellant ASI Hardeep Singh alongwith other police officials had left Police Station, Sardulgarh at 1.40 p.m. on 3.8.2002 and had returned at 8.30 p.m. on 3.8.2002 vide report Ex.DB. Om Parkash was arrested in FIR No.94 dated 3.8.2002. This FIR had come into existence only at 2.30 p.m. Om Parkash had not been arrested at 9.00 a.m. and thus, emergence of complainant Lachhu Ram in Police Station, Sardulgarh to secure his release was out of question.

24. Had appellant Hardeep Singh actually received the bribe amount, having remained investigating officer of the case against Om Prkash, he was to be of help and support to the complainant in that matter, whereas he was not. It remains a fact that Om Parkash had been challaned in FIR No.94 dated 3.8.2002 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station, Sardulgarh.

25. Version of appellant Hardeep Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, however, is as under:

I am innocent. Forged receipts and bills were recovered from Om Parkash and case was registered against him. He was putting political pressure upon me to cancel the case when I did not agree with him then a false affidavit had been filed against me. I never received any illegal gratification or money.

26. So far as appellant Gora Lal is concerned, his stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC is as under:

I am innocent. I was witness in the case of Om Parkash and from the possession of Om Parkash forged receipts and bills were recovered in my presence. And they are putting the pressure upon me not to give the evidence and to file an affidavit against the investigating officer of that case and when I did not agree then I have been falsely implicated in the present case.

27. Defence version emerging from both the appellants is sound. A case had been registered against Om Parkash in FIR No.94 dated 3.8.2002 under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station, Sardulgarh for having allegedly forged receipts and bills. The chain of events which has unfolded itself (particularly in the face of role of complainant Lachhu Ram) is noteworthy. It is clear that he was not an ordinary offender and when was trying to get him free from the police case, was not to take the things lying down.

28. Registration of the present case after 3 months and 10 days of the case against Om Parkash, lends credence to the defence version that the investigating officer of the case was under tremendous pressure to cancel the case and his refusal on this count had earned wrath of the complainant who was after his blood thereafter.

29. Gora Lal who otherwise was having no connection with the case in his hand, got stuck in the counter-blasting of complainant against the appellant when he also refused to oblige the complainant by accepting his request of not appearing as a witness against Om Parkash who had been nabbed by ASI Hardeep Singh with forged receipts and bills in the presence of Gora Lal.

30. It is worth notice that Lachhu Ram is the complainant. Balbir Singh (PW2) is his real brother and Banwari Lal (PW3) is his close associate. Taxi driver Rakesh Kumar, who had accompanied complainant Lachhu Ram from Nohar (Rajasthan) to Sardhulgarh was an independent witness. If version of the prosecution is accepted, he was the one who had also taken the complainant to different places for collection of money to be allegedly paid as bribe.

31. Lachhu Ram (PW1) states that he had arranged Rs.40,000/- from Banwari Lal, yet another Rs.40,000/- from one Sant Lal, Rs.30,000/- from Balbir Singh and Rs.35,000/- from one Shish Pal. Remaining amount was arranged by him himself. Out of the whole lot, only Banwari Lal has been examined as PW3. Lachhu Ram and Balbir Singh are his sisters sons. As per his version, he had lent Rs.40,000/- to Lachhu Ram at about 8.00 a.m. on 4.8.2002. Neither any writing had been effected nor he had been able to convincingly explain as to how a large sum of Rs.40,000/- were available ready at hand with him. Even otherwise, from his village in Rajasthan, how the complainant could reach Sardulgarh when he was allegedly collecting the money almost till the next morning, has also not been explained.

32. It is also very strange that information about arrest of Om Parkash was given on telephone to complainant Lachhu Ram on 3.8.2002. He neither knew the caller nor had been disclosed his identity. The said call was made to him at 5.00 a.m. on 3.8.2002 but the complainant did not visit the firm or house of Om Parkash but had gone straight to the Police Station even though he had no information of the FIR or as to under which offences the same had been registered against Om Parkash. Even when Om Parkash was to be produced in the courts at Mansa, he never went there. It is in statement of Lachhu Ram that Om Parkash was released only after a month even though he had engaged a lawyer for Om Parkash immediately on his arrest. This conduct of Lachhu Ram is also unexplained. He did not know even the progress of the case.

33. So far as collection of money is concerned, complainant Lachhu Ram states that Banwari Lal, Sant Lal, Balbir Singh and Shish Pal had not come from Nohar (Rajasthan) and Sirsa (Haryana) to hand over money to him but they had come few days later and that too after 26.8.2002. That also destroys the basic terra-firma of his case that he had collected Rs.1,80,000/- to be paid to ASI Hardeep Singh from his friends and relatives from Nohar (Rajasthan) and Sirsa (Haryana).

34. There is consistent version of complainant Lachhu Ram (PW1), Balbir Singh (PW2) and Banwari Lal (PW3) that despite having received Rs.1,80,000/- by ASI Hardeep Singh, Om Parkash, nephew of the complainant, was not released. If this is theposition, had money actuallybeen paid to ASI Hardeep Singh, they were not to wait. Things were to be different. Cross-examination of Balbir Singh (PW2) leaves much to be desired. Though he states that he had accompanied Lachhu Ram to ASI Hardeep Singh for return of the money, as Om Parkash had not been released, but he does not remember the date or time of such visit. He had also conceded that he had not gone with the complainant for engaging a lawyer to defend Om Parkash. He was confronted with his earlier statement made to the police during the course of investigations and was belied in the court. Even with regard to alleged role of Gora Lal, his statement is completely divergent from his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. He neither knew details of business of Om Parkash nor had any knowledge of his business premises or of his house or of matters connected therewith.

35. The very fact that Om Parkash was not released even after getting alleged bribe lends support to the case of the defence that there was never such a deal nor any bribe had even been paid or accepted.

36. On affidavit (Ex.PA) of complainant Lachhu Ram forming basis of registration of this FIR, enquiry had been conducted by S.P. Hartej Singh Sekhon (PW6) who had submitted his report (Ex.PW6/A) which ultimately had become basis of this FIR. Cross-examination of this witness reveals that his enquiry report (Ex.PW6/A) is lopsided and there are many missing links and overlappings. Stand of complainant Lachhu Ram is that he had arranged money in driblets from his relatives and friends to pay bribe to ASI Hardeep Singh but Hartej Singh Sekhon (PW6) neither remembered any such version having been depicted by the complainant nor had verified the source of amount allegedly paid to the police officer as bribe. This inhouse enquiry was made at the back of appellant Hardeep Singh. Version of appellant Hardeep Singh could have been taken during the enquiry so as to reach the truth. To many of material questions, this witness did not give any answer and rather projected ignorance. A specific suggestion was put to him that he had put pressure on ASI Hardeep Singh, investigating officer of the case in favour of Om Parkash and had sought further favour not to present the challan against the accused which request he did not accept and rather, he gave affidavit against him. Though he has denied the suggestion but many material questions he could not reply and has rather feigned ignorance revealing that everything was not truthful and transparent in the enquiry Ex.PW6/A which had formed the foundation of this case.

37. From the totality of facts and circumstances, this case having been filed by the complainant as a counter-blast to the case registered against Om Parkash, his nephew, is plausible.

38. From the detailed discussion made earlier, grave doubt regarding truthfulness of the prosecution has prominently emerged. Therefore, by giving benefit of doubt to both the appellants, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge, Mansa are set aside. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed and the accusedappellants, namely, Hardeep Singh and Gora Lal are acquitted of the charge against them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. The case property, if any, be dealt with as per rules.