Harnek Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Harnek Singh, appellant herein faced trial under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 IPC before the Special Judge, Ludhiana. After trial, he was accordingly convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Therefore, he has preferred this appeal.

The case of the prosecution as seen from the FIR registered on the statement of Ujagar Singh is as follows :

Ujagar Singh is a resident of Village Siarh. His younger brother Samsher Singh had filed a civil suit in connection with their lands. Later on a compromise was effected between them. The mutation regarding the said lands was sanctioned in the names of both of them. They wanted to partition the lands, for which purpose, they needed copy of the Jamabandi in respect of the said lands.

Harnek Singh is the Patwari and his Patwarkhana is situated in the Grain Market of their village. Ujagar Singh visited the appellantaccused Harnek Singh threefour times to get the copy of the Jamabandi, but every time, he was putting off the matter under one pretext or the other. On 28.10.1985, Ujagar Singh again requested the accusedappellant to supply of copy of Jamabandi and the accused said that he wanted Rs. 200/ as illegal gratification for this work, and insisted that if Ujagar Singh wanted a copy of Jamabandi, he had to pay Rs. 200/ as illegal gratification. After the request made by Ujagar Singh, the accused agreed that he would not accept less than Rs. 100/ which Ujagar Singh agreed to pay. AccusedHarnek Singh asked Ujagar Singh to bring Rs. 100/ on 29.10.1985, the next day. But Ujagar Singh did not want to pay Rs. 100/ as bribe to Harnek Singh, and therefore, wanted legal action to be taken against him.

According to the case of the prosecution, on 29.10.1985, Ujagar Singh came to the New Courts, Ludhiana and met Sarwan Singh at 10.00 a.m. by chance, and both of them went to the office of the Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana situated in the New Courts Complex. They met InspectorTarsem Lal and told him about the demand of illegal gratification by accusedHarnek Singh. The statement of Ujagar Singh was recorded by Inspector Tarsem Lal on 29.10.1985 which formed the basis for the registration of the FIR in question. Ujagar Singh handed over two currency notes of Rs. 50/ to Inspector Tarsem Lal who treated those notes with a white powder and returned them to Ujagar Singh. The Inspector prepared a solution of Sodium Carbonate amd water amd washed his hands in that solution, the colour of which became pink and then destroyed the solution. InspectorTarsem Lal directed Ujagar Singh to hand over those currency notes to appellantHarnek Singh and asked Sarwan Singh to accompany him and give a signal to the police on Harnek Singh accepting the money. All of them reached near the Patwarkhana.

AccusedHarnek Singh was at Patwarkhana. Harnek Singh prepared a copy of the Jamabandi and asked Rs. 100/ from Ujagar Singh and then handed over the copy of the Jamabandi. Ujagar Singh handed over the currency notes to Harnek Singh who received them, wrapped them in a handkerchief, placed the handkerchief inside a register and placed the register on top of an almirah lying there. Sarwan Singh gave a signal to the police party, and by that time Harnek Singh had locked the Patwarkhana from outside and was leaving that place. When Harnek Singh took a turn towards village Butahari, two constables apprehended him from his wrist and InspectorTersem Lal also reached there.

Inspector Tersem Lal prepared a solution of water and white powder in a glass, and the accused washed his hands in the solution. The colour of the solution became light pink and the solution was then taken in a nip, sealed and taken into possession under a memo. On a personal search of Harnek Singh, two keys were recovered from his possession which were also seized under a memo. Harnek Singh opened the lock of the Patwarkhana with one of those keys. After undergoing a search, ConstableJoginder Pal went inside the Patwarkhana and in the meantime, Dalip Singh, Ajaib Singh and Bakhtawar Singh also came there and entered the Patwarkhana. ConstableJoginder Pal conducted the search of the Patwarkhana, and the handkerchief was recovered from inside the register which was lying on the top of the almirah. The handkerchief contained two currency notes of Rs. 50/ each. A solution of water and white powder was prepared in which the handkerchief was washed and the solution became dark pink and red in colour. The solution was taken in a nip, sealed and seized under a memo. The handkerchief, the currency notes, the record of the Patwarkhana, and the Jamabandi were also taken into possession under separate memo. AccusedHarnek Singh was arrested, and the notes seized were sent for chemical analysis, on which the report was received.

The prosecution apart from examining Ujagar Singh (PW6), Sarwan Singh (PW7), Inspector Tarsem Lal (PW8), also examined Bachan Singh (PW1) to prove the sanction for prosecution, and the connected documents and Bikram Singh (PW2) to prove that the accused was working as Revenue Patwari of village Siarh. H.C. Jagtar Singh (PW3), Constable Joginder Pal Singh (PW4) and Constable Jasbir Singh (PW5) produced their affidavits. Sh. K.R. Lakhanpal, IAS, the then District Collector, Ludhiana was examined as a court witness to prove the sanction to prosecute the accused.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the allegations and pleaded innocence and had produced certain documents.

Taking into consideration the materials placed before him, the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana convicted and sentenced the accused as already pointed out. Hence this appeal by the accusedHarnek Singh.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

It is not necessary to repeat the case of the prosecution once again in detail. But, for the purposes of discussion, we have to take note that PW6 Ujagar Singh has stated that he had met accused/appellant 4 or 5 times to get the copy of Jamabandi, that the accused demanded illegal gratification, that on 28.10.1985, it was settled that PW6 should pay Rs. 100/ as bribe to accused/appellant to get the copy of the Jamabandi and that on 29.10.1985 he gave Rs. 100/ and got the copy. But, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the allegations against the accused/appellant are motivated since PW6Ujagar Singh had several land disputes, and accused/appellant, who was working as Patwari, had not acted according to the wishes of PW6Ujagar Singh. I will now examine whether this contention can be accepted ?

PW6Ujagar Singh admitted in his evidence in crossexamination that he had a brother named Gurpal Singh and on his death he (PW6) wanted the mutation regarding the succession to his property should be attested in favour of himself (PW6), his brother and mother, but the mutation was shown by the accused as `disputed''. PW6, of course, attempted to say that the entry was so made by the accused/appellant on the application of Shamsher Singh, the other brother of PW6, who wanted the mutation to be entered in the names of PW6 and himself (Shamsher Singh) only. It was suggested to PW6 that he, therefore, had grudge against the accused, which he of course denied. But it is obvious that the accused/appellant did not act according to the wishes of PW6Ujagar Singh in this matter.

PW6Ujagar Singh also admitted that Surjit Kaur was his sister who had some property and that she was residing with his mother and Gupral Singh. PW6 also admitted that on the death of Surjit Kaur, the accused entered the mutation regarding inheritance as `disputed''. But he then volunteered that the accused had entered the mutation regarding inheritance to Surjit Kaur in the name of his mother alone. He denied the suggestion that he wanted the mutation regarding the inheritance to Surjit Kaur to be attested in favour of his mother alone as his mother resided with him so that he may take the land after her death.

PW5Ujagar Singh stated in his evidence that he had purchased some share of Shamsher Singh in a plot and that he has not got the mutation entered in his name so far. He also stated that he does not know if the mutation has been rejected. He denied the suggestion that he had told the accused/appellant that he had got the mutation rejected but should get it accepted one way or the other. But PW6 stated that he does not remember if he had not produced any sale deed for getting the mutation sanctioned on its basis.

Therefore, we find that with regard to certain lands and the plot the mutations had not been entered as PW6Ujagar Singh wanted, though, he denied some of the suggestions made to him. Therefore, obviously PW6Ujagar Singh has the motive to implicate the accused/appellant.

Next I will see whether the evidence adduced in this case is sufficient to convict the accused of having demanded and received illegal gratification from PW6Ujagar Singh on the alleged request of PW6Ujagar Singh for the supply of the copy of Jamabandi.

Learned counsel for the accused/appellant contended that though PW6 stated that prior to 29.10.1985, he had gone to the accused/appellant 4 or 5 times to get the copy of the jamabandi of the land, and that even though in the FIR it has been stated that Ujagar Singh visited the accused 3 or 4 times for this purpose, the accused/appellant was putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. PW6 had not given the details like date and time of such visits either in the FIR or in his evidence. PW6 stated in his evidence that he went to the accused 4 or 5 times to get copy of the Jamabandi, and that the accused demanded Rs. 200/ as illegal gratification. If that be so, PW6 would have stated about this to somebody in the village or complained to somebody. PW6 admitted that nobody was present when the accused made the demand for the bribe. PW also admitted that he did not talk to anybody in the village regarding the demand of bribe by the accused/appellant and that he did not lodge any complaint with any other Officer except Vigilance Bureau regarding the demand.

The next question is whether PW6Ujagar Singh at least informed PW7 Sarwan Singh, who had allegedly accompanied him at the time of the occurrence, about this. PW7Sarwan Singh stated in his evidence that he does not remember if he had stated to the police that Ujagar Singh told him that the accused demanded bribe from him and enquired if he was prepared to appear as a witness or that he replied in the affirmative. But in his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW7 had not stated so. PW6Ujagar Singh stated in his evidence that he had already told about demand of bribe by the accused/appellant to Sarwan Singh (PW7), but, in his statement Ex.PH on which the FIR has been registered, it has not been so stated at all.

Therefore, we find that PW6Ujagar Singh had not mentioned about this alleged demand by accusedappellant to anybody in the village and he had not even told PW7Sarwan Singh about this in advance. But PW6 stated that on 29.10.1985, he came to New Courts in Ludhiana, met Sarwan SinghPW7 there and told him about the demand by the accused. He also stated that thereafter they went to the Vigilance Bureau and met InspectorTarsem Lal (PW8). But PW6Ujagar Singh admitted in his evidence that PW7Sarwan Singh is his collateral. Therefore, we find that PW6 Ujagar Singh has chosen one of his relations as a witness, and even PW8Tarsem Lal, the Investigating Officer, had allegedly sent him as a shadow witness. We find that no independent witness has been taken to the Patwarkhana at the time of the alleged occurrence. First of all, PW7Sarwan Singh has not stated so as to what is the work he had on that day in the Courts. It is not as if PW6 and PW7 had arranged to meet each other on that day, but it was only a meeting per chance. So, we find that no independent witness has been associated and only a relation namely, PW7Sarwan Singh had been chosen to act as the shadow witness.

Learned counsel for the accused/appellant also pointed out that the Investigating OfficerTarsem Lal (PW8) had not taken any Officer alongwith him for the purpose of trapping the accused/appellant. Of course, PW8 Tarsem Lal stated in his evidence that after following the formalities like applying the Phenolphathalein Powder to the currency notes etc. and instructing PW6 to give the currency notes to the accused/appellant and asking PW7Sarwan Singh to give the signal, they all proceeded alongwith the police party in a jeep. He also stated that he went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, but stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Officer were not present and, therefore, he got the permission from Mr. Bansal, G.A. to Deputy Commissioner to conduct the raid. During cross examination also he stated that he tried to join official witnesses in the raid and for that purpose he went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Deputy Commissioner, but they were not available. He also stated that he had approached the G.A. to the Deputy Commissioner and moved an application before him on which the G.A. ordered that the Revenue Officer be joined with the police party, but no Revenue Officer was available. Of course, it was suggested to him that the Tehsildar was present in his office on that day and that he did not join any official with the police party as he was in league with Ujagar Singh, but he denied the suggestion. PW8Tarsem Lal stated that the application given by him to the G.A. was attached with the police, file, but when he was directed to produce that application after going through the said file, he stated that the said application was not on the file with him, and therefore, it could not be produced. It was suggested that he had not moved any such application, but, he denied the same. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant it is highly doubtful whether PW8Tarsem Lal had even tried to join any official witness for the purpose of conducting the raid, and there is no valid reason for not associating any such official. This is also a circumstance which makes the case of the prosecution suspect.

PW8Tarsem Lal had not even joined an independent witness. When he was asked as to why he had not associated any independent witness, he stated that he did not try to join any person from the public as he stated that the information of raid may not be leaked to the accused. But PW6Ujagar Singh stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence, namely, 29.10.1985, ConstableJoginder Pal was sent inside the Patwarkhana for search (after he (PW6) had given the money to the accused/appellant), and that Dalip Singh, Ajaib Singh and PanchBakhtawar Singh also came there and they also entered the Patwarkhana. So without any need for PW8Tarsem Lal even to call any independent witness, these persons had entered Patwarkhana, when Constable Joginder Pal entered the Patwarkhana for the purpose of effecting the search. The further evidence of PW6Ujagar Singh is that during the search the two currency notes given by him, wrapped in handkerchief and placed in a register lying on the top of the almirah, were recovered. He also stated about the seizure of currency notes, the handkerchief, the copy of Jamabandi (Ex.P6) etc. PW6 also stated that Mohinder Singh Sarpanch also came there and he asked Dalip Singh, Ajaib Singh and Bakhtawar Singh as to why they were interfering in the official work of the police and took them away. Therefore, we find that not only these three independent persons mentioned above but even the Sarpanch had come, but these witnesses were not associated by the police in the conduct of the raid or the search or recovery of money etc. So, the explanation of PW8Tarsem Lal (the Investigating Officer) that he did not associate any independent witness since he was afraid that the information may be leaked to the accused, cannot at all be accepted, and it is clear that it is only an afterthought to get over the defect.

The learned counsel for the accused/appellant next contended that even according to the case of the prosecution, the money which was allegedly given as bribe to the accused/appellant was not on the person of the accusedHarnek Singh when it was allegedly recovered. As pointed out already, the case of the prosecution is that when the PW6Ujagar Singh gave two currency notes of Rs. 50/ each as bribe to accused/appellant, he received them from PW6, and afterwards wrapped them in a handkerchief placed it inside the register, and placed the register itself on the top of an almirah lying in his office. The investigating officerTarsem Lal (PW8) stated that he sent ConstableJoginder Pal inside the patwarkhana to conduct the search. He also stated that the accused, Dalip Singh, Ajaib Singh and Bakhtawar Singh also accompanied Constable Joginder Pal for conducting the search and that he (PW8), Ujagar Singh, Sarwan Singh and Gurmail Singh stood outside the Patwarkhana on the road. He also stated that ConstableJoginder Pal firstly searched the drawer of the table lying inside patwarkhana, and nothing was recovered from the drawer. PW6 also stated that Jamabandi register was lying on the top of the Godrej Almirah, which was lying in the Patwarkhana, that on search by the Constable, the register was found to contain currency notes wrapped in a torn piece of cloth, and that the constable produced that register alongwith the notes and torn piece of cloth before him (PW8).

The learned counsel for the accused/appellant contended that when the Investigating OfficerTarsem Lal (PW8) had come specifically for the purposes of conducting the raid, it is not known as to why he did not go and conduct the search, but had asked ConstableJoginder Pal to conduct the search, and as to why he stood outside the patwarkhana. He further contended that if he (PW8) was standing outside the patwarkhana, he could not have known personally that the currency notes were wrapped in a handkerchief and placed inside the register lying on the almirah, which itself was lying inside the Patwarkhana. I agree with the learned counsel for the accused/appellant in this regard. Tarsem Lal (PW8) should have entered the Patwarkhana and conducted the search, whereas, he has not done so. If he had not gone inside the Patwarkhana but was standing outside the Patwarkhana, then he could not have known personally that the currency notes were found wrapped in handkerchief and placed inside the register, which itself was lying on the top of the almirah in the Patwarkhana. Therefore, it is clear that PW8 has no personal knowledge of either the search or the recovery of the currency notes wrapped in handkerchief from the register as alleged. Further, as per the evidence of PW8Tarsem Lal, PW6Ujagar Singh, PW7 Sarwan Singh also stood outside the Patwarkhana on the road. Therefore, PW6 and PW7 also could not know personally about the finding of the currency notes or the recovery of the same by the Constable as stated above. Of course, PW6Ujagar Singh stated in his evidence that the accused/appellant received the notes, wrapped those notes in handkerchief and then asked them (PW6 and PW7) to leave the Patwarkhana, and that they (PW6 and PW7) came outside. He also stated that the accused/appellant wrapped the notes in the handkerchief and placed it in the register, and placed that register on the almirah. If PW6 had come outside the Patwarkhana after giving the money then, he could not have known that the accused/appellant wrapped the currency notes in a handkerchief or that he placed it inside the register or had placed the register on the top of the almirah, because, he specifically admitted in his evidence in crossexamination that the accused demanded and accepted the money first, and then issued the copy of the Jamabandi (Ex.P6). He also stated that the accused was yet to place the money on the almirah when he handed over the copy to him. PW6 also specifically stated that after giving the money to the accused and taking the copy of the jamabandi they came outside and that the accused kept the money on the almirah after they had left the place. This apart PW6 Ujagar Singh specifically admitted that ConstableJoginder Pal came out of the Patwarkhana and told that the handkerchief containing the notes was recovered from the top of the almirah lying in the Patwarkhana. Therefore, it is obvious that PW6Ujagar Singh also could not have seen the accused wrapping the currency notes with the handkerchief, placing it inside the register and placing the register itself on the top of an almirah.

PW7Sarwan Singh only stated about the PW6 handing over the currency notes to the accused and the accused accepting it. Therefore, PW7 also could not have known about the accused wrapping it in handkerchief and placing it inside the register.

Further, as pointed out already, according to the evidence of PW8Tarsem Lal when ConstableJoginder Pal entered the Patwarkhana for conducting the search, Dalip Singh, Ajaib Singh and Bakhtawar Singh also accompanied him for conducting the search. But, none of these three persons has been examined.

One other aspect which also goes against the case of the prosecution is this. As pointed out already, the Investigating OfficerTarsem Lal (PW8) stated in his evidence that ConstableJoginder Pal went inside the Patwarkhana, searched, found the currency notes etc. and produced the register along with the notes and torn piece of cloth before him. But PW7 Swaran Singh, who is alleged to have gone as a shadow witness, stated in his evidence that the said constable picked up a register lying on the top of the almirah, brought it outside, and when that register was shattered (shaken), one handkerchief and two currency notes fell from it. This is not the evidence of either PW6 or PW8. Realising the effect of what he had done, PW7 then changed and stated that the register was shaken inside the Patwarkhana, and that the handkerchief and the notes had fallen inside the patwarkhana.

Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, apart from the fact that the currency notes allegedly given as bribe by PW6 Ujagar Singh to accused/appellant were not found and recovered from the person of the accused/appellant, they are alleged to have been recovered from inside a register wrapped in a handkerchief. The evidence with regard to the alleged search and recovery is unbelievable. PW8 himself did not go inside the patwarkhana and effect the search or recovery. PW6 and PW7 were standing outside the patwarkhana alongwith PW8 as is seen from the evidence pointed out above. The independent witnesses, who are alleged to have gone with ConstableJoginder Pal have neither been associated with search and the recovery nor have been examined as witnesses. Further, if ConstableJoginder Pal had entered the Patwarkhana, conducted the search and effected recovery of the currency notes, the handkerchief and the register etc., then the memo for the recovery should have been prepared on the spot then and there by the ConstableJoginder Pal himself, but that has not been done. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW8) shows that the Constable conducted the search, effected recovery and brought the recovered articles and produced them before him, and thereafter he washed the handkerchief with the solution and had also taken the currency notes, handkerchief and the solution etc. into possession under memo. This procedure allegedly adopted by the Investigating Officer (PW8) is not legal but is a strange one, and renders the case of the prosecution unbelievable and unacceptable.

Therefore, in the circumstances pointed out above, I am of the view that the alleged search and recovery of the currency notes are unbelievable and do not inspire confidence to hold the accused/appellant guilty. The evidence of PWs 6 to 8 is unbelievable and unworthy of acceptance in this regard.

Further, PW8Tarsem Lal stated in his evidence that he had directed Sarwan SinghPW7 to remain with PW6 Ujagar Singh, listen to the talk between Ujagar Singh and the accused and give the signal to the police as and when accused accepted the bribe from Ujagar Singh. PW7Sarwan Singh also stated so in his evidence. PW7Sarwan Singh also stated that he gave signal to the police accordingly. But, though PW6Ujagar Singh stated in his evidence that he did not give the signal to the police party, he had stated to the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he gave the signal to the police party. Of course, this may be a minor discrepancy but, coupled with the other circumstances pointed out above, this will also go to show that the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted.

Learned counsel for the accused/appellant contended that the evidence of PW6, PW7 and PW8 being unacceptable and PWs 6 and 7 being relations interested in the success of the prosecuting, the nonassociation and non examination of independent witness renders the case of the prosecution unbelievable. In this connection, he also relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1947 Chandigarh Law Reporter 611 which also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the alleged occurrence i.e. the giving of the bribe, the search and alleged recovery of the money are stated to have taken place on 29.10.1985 whereas PW6 Ujagar Singh had got the copy of the jamabandi even on 26.10.1985 itself and, therefore, it will be clear that there was no need for him to give any bribe on 29.10.85 for getting the copy of the Jamabandi. PW6Ujagar Singh stated in his evidence that on 29.10.1985 when himself and PW7Sarwan Singh entered the Patwarkhana, one Gurmail Singh was also sitting with the accused and was taking the copies of the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdwari from the accused in their presence. PW6 also stated that after Gurmail Singh had left Patwarkhana, the accused started preparing the copy of the jamabandi of his (PW6''s) land, and when the copy was ready, the accused asked him to give Rs. 100/ and then handed over the copy of the jamabandi. PW6 further stated that after getting the copy, he (PW6) told him that the date of the issue of that copy was written as 26.10.1985 while the date on that day was 29.10.1985. Therefore, we find that it is not as if the copy had already been prepared, but was prepared only on 29.10.1985. But even according to PW6, the date of issue of copy was mentioned therein as 26.10.1985. It was also suggested to PW6Ujagar Singh that the copy of the jamabandi (Ex.P6) was issued to him on 26.10.1985 and that after delivery the accused had made entries in relevant records also on that date, but, that was denied by him. But as the learned counsel for the accused/appellant rightly contended if the date of issue was 26.10.1985, then there could have been no necessity or chance at all for PW6 and PW7 to approach the accused/appellant on 29.10.1985 to get the copy or to give bribe. But the strange explanation given by PW6 is that even Gurmail Singh who had got the copy on 29.10.1985 had questioned the accused as to why the date was put as 26.10.1985 in the copies furnished to him, even though the date was only 29.10.1985, and that the accused had told him that he was concerned only with the copies and not with the date of issue and that it has been ante dated as the entries in the roznamcha had been made upto 26.10.1985. PW6 also stated that when he questioned the accused about date of issue having been ante dated in the copy supplied to him (PW6), the accused told him that he had already explained his difficulty to Gurmail Singh in his (PW 6''s) presence and that he (PW6) also was concerned with the copy of and not with the date of issue. Therefore, it is seen that the copy was prepared in the presence of PW6 himself and the date of issue has been mentioned as 26.10.1985. This explanation given is unacceptable. Simply because the entries in the Roznmacha stopped with 26.10.1985, it was not necessary that the date of issue on the copy should be mentioned as 26.10.1985. This circumstance only probablises the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the copy of Jamabandi had been given on 26.10.1985 itself to PW6 and that there was no need at all for PW6 to go to the Patwarkhana on 29.10.1985 to get the copy of Jamabandi or to give any bribe to the accused/appellant for getting the copy.

PW6 admitted that in the year 1985 he had filed a suit in which he had produced the photocopy of the JamabandiEx.P6 in that suit. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant rightly contended that if Ex.P6, the copy of the jamabandi had been seized by the police as alleged by him, then it would not have been possible for PW6 to produce the copy of the same in Court in the year 1985 itself. This again was sought to be explained by PW6 by stating that he had got Ex.P6 from the police, taken photocopy and filed the photocopy into Court, which is wholly unacceptable.

Therefore, if we take into consideration all these circumstances pointed out by me above, it will be clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused/appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and that the accused/appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of the evidence produced before the court.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction of and the sentence passed against the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant is acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded to him.