Adarsh Mohan vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') as ordered by the Special Judge vide judgment/order dated 4.10.2004/5.10.2004 in FIR No. 139 dated 27.4.1997 registered at Police Station Alewa. Prosecution story, in brief, is that a complaint was moved by Shiv Raj Singh to the Station House Officer, Police Station Alewa to initiate action against the officials, who had issued electric connections illegally. Thereafter, during investigation, statements of the consumers, who had been released illegal connections were recorded.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused.

Charges were framed against the appellant and his co-accused Chattar Singh for commission of offence punishable 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. So far as accused L.N. Guglani was concerned, he was discharged as sanction for his prosecution was not accorded by the competent authority.

Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined twenty one witnesses.

So far as accused Chattar Singh is concerned, he died during the pendency of the trial.

Appellant, when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded that he was innocent.

Appellant examined DW-1 Hawa Singh in his defence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been falsely involved in this case. Appellant had no power to release the connections in question. The connections in question were to be released by the Sub Divisional Officer, who had been discharged during trial. Appellant had to obey the orders of his superior. The prosecution witnesses had failed to prove any receipts on record with regard to payment made by them nor their statements were corroborated by any independent witness.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Many of the consumers, who were examined as prosecution witnesses, had duly supported the prosecution case.

PW-1 Chattar Singh did not support the prosecution case during trial.

PW-2 Satbir Singh deposed that in January, 1997, he had applied for an electric connection for his tubewell for agricultural purposes. He had contacted Chattar Singh, consumer clerk and was asked to deposit Rs. 51/- towards security purpose. He had also deposited Rs. 4,620/- towards security. Chattar Singh accused asked him to contact the appellant. Then both Chattar Singh and the appellant demanded Rs. 12,500/- as expenses. The said amount was paid by him to the appellant. He was also asked to bring his tractor for lifting the requisite material from Jind. Thereafter, connection was released in his favour on 16.3.1997. No receipt was given to him qua payment of Rs. 12,500/-.

PW-4 Shiv Raj Singh had deposed with regard to receipt of oral complaints in question qua release of illegal connections. He further deposed that he had made a complaint to the police in this regard.

PW-5 Shri Bhagwan deposed that in the year 1997, Rs. 3,000/- had been demanded from him for release of electric connection by the appellant. He had paid the said amount and ultimately connection was released to him. Later on the electric connection had been disconnected by the higher authority as it was found to be illegal connection.

PW-6 Ishwar Singh deposed that he wanted to get his tubewell connection shifted from his existing site. He had moved an application in this regard. Appellant demanded Rs. 10,200/- for doing the needful. On payment, the connection was shifted as desired by him.

PW-7 Pawan deposed that in January, 1997, he had applied for a tubewell connection and had deposited Rs. 4,600/- towards security. When he met the appellant, a demand of Rs. 9,000/- was made from him. He paid the said amount to the appellant and the electric connection was released to him.

PW-8 Ram Mehar did not support the prosecution case.

PW-10 Ram Niwas Rohilla deposed that in the year 1997, he was posted as Sub Divisional Officer, Julana. He received a list regarding release of electric connections. On inquiry, it was found that 15 connections were running illegally at the spot.

PW-15 Gaze Singh deposed that about 5-6 years ago, his electric connection was disconnected being illegal. The said connection was released to him after he had paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant.

PW-16 Ram Dhari deposed that about 5-6 years ago, he had met Chattar Singh and the appellant for release of electric connection. He had paid Rs. 5,000/- on one occasion and Rs. 4,000/- on another occasion. The electric connection being illegal was later disconnected.

PW-18 Sultan Singh deposed that he had been handed over the investigation of the case on 13.5.1997 and had recorded the statements of seventeen witnesses and had taken in possession the relevant record from the appellant.

PW-19 Ganga Ram deposed that in December 1997, he had taken over the investigation of the case and had formally arrested accused Laxmi Narain. He had recorded the statements of Ram Niwas Rohila and Gaje Singh and had prepared the final report.

PW-20 Manphool Singh did not support the prosecution case.

Thus, prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of receipt of oral complaints with regard to release of illegal connections. Statements of consumers were recorded in this regard. Consumers PW-2 Satbir Singh, PW-5 Shri Bhagwan, PW-6 Ishwar Singh, PW-7 Pawan, PW-15 Gaze Singh and PW-16 Ram Dhari have duly proved the prosecution case and have deposed with regard to demand made by appellant and payment of the amount in question to the appellant. The said witnesses have deposed that after the payment was made by them, the connections were released to them. Some of the said witnesses have deposed that later on the electric connections were disconnected as the same were found to be illegal connections. The said witnesses had no enmity against the appellant to have falsely involved him in this case. Appellant was working as Foreman at the relevant time. In these circumstances, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant. Prosecution witnesses PW-2 Satbir Singh, PW-5 Shri Bhagwan, PW-6 Ishwar Singh, PW-7 Pawan, PW-15 Gaze Singh and PW-16 Ram Dhari have categorically deposed with regard to money given by them to the appellant for release of connections. The said consumers had no way of knowing that the connections were to be released by the Sub Divisional Officer or the appellant. Further as per the said witnesses, connections were duly released to them after they had made payment to the appellant. Some of the witnesses have further deposed that the connections were disconnected later on as it had transpired that they had been released illegally. Since the connections in question were released illegally, the said prosecution witnesses could not produce any receipt with regard to the payment made by them. The fact that the money had not been paid in the presence of any person loses its significance as so many consumers have deposed against the appellant with regard to payment made by them to the appellant. Further the electric connections were released to the said witnesses after the money was paid by them to the appellant. In these circumstances, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The trial Court had, thus, rightly ordered the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act but sentence qua imprisonment appears to be on the higher side. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification that sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act is reduced to one year. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.