Ram Krishan Juneja vs State of Haryana

J.B. Garg, J.

Ram Kishan Juneja, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mohindergarh, has been convicted under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 year and fine of R. 3,000/ or in default of payment thereof, to further undergo R.I. for fix months under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and R.I. for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/. or in default of payment thereof, to further undergo R.I. for two months under Section 161 IPC, by the learned Special Judge, Narnaul, vide his order dated 11th July, 1990. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred.

Briefly, the story of the prosecution is that on 21.6.1988 when execution proceedings were pending against the Mahendergarh Pall Automobiles and Agro Implements Production Cooperative Society Ltd., Mahendergarh, Satya Pal, one of its office bearers, who was apprehending recovery and closures, approached Ram Kishan Juneja, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mahendergarh, to favour him and to exempt the society from its closure. Ram Kishan Juneja demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/ and unwillingly Satya Pal complainant agreed to pay. However, Satya Pal approached Shri Ram Niwas, the then Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Mahendergarh at about 2.00 p.m. and a trap was laid and three currency notes of Rs. 100/ each and four currency notes of Rs. 50/ each were placed in an envelope and these were handed over to Rajesh Kumar, the son of Satya Pal complainant and the aforesaid young boy handed over the envelope containing the money to Ram Kishan Juneja at the premises of M/s. Bhilwara suitings which is situated near the Bus Stand at Mahendergarh where the accused used to go so often. The jeep in which the raiding party travelled, was parked at such a place from where Rajesh was visible and on receiving the signal from the aforesaid Rajesh, the complainant party reached the aforesaid shop and the envelope in question containing the money was recovered from the right hand of the accused, when he was in the process of taking it out from his pocket with the object of hiding it. A recovery memo was prepared by a member of the staff of the S.D.O. (Civil) on his dictation. Thereafter, the accused was taken to Police Station Mahendergarh and he was handed over to Shri Basant Pal Head Constable. The Moharrir Head Constable prepared a separate memo Ex. PC for taking the envelope containing the currency notes in his possession and a word was also sent to the local Deputy Superintendent of Police who also reached the Police Station and concluded the proceedings.

PW4 Shri Ram Niwas, the then S.D.O. (Civil) Mahendergarh, PW7 Satya Pal complainant who is a cosharer of the Pall Automobiles and Agro Implements Production Society, Mahendergarh and PW8 Rajesh Kumar son of the complainant who allegedly handed over the money to the accused, have appeared in the trial Court and supported the story of the prosecution.

The version of the accused had been that the Mahendergarh Pall Automobiles and Agro Implements Production Cooperative Society, was a chronic defaulter and in reality the accused had been taking steps for recovery of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,66,141/ which was payable by the aforesaid society on account of an award passed against it and that the complainant or his son never handed over the envelope in question to him. It has also been said that neither he made any demand of Rs. 500/ nor the money or the envelope in question was accepted by him. It was also stated by the accused that all the paper were prepared at the residence of the S.D.O. (Civil) Mahendergarh and he was subsequently handed over to the Police.

On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that it is an admitted fact that on account of the award a sum of Rs. 1,66,141/ was outstanding against this cooperative industrial concern and it was recoverable as land revenue since, 1986. If this was the factual position what particular role in his favour this complainant was expecting from the accused. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 637, it was observed that no doubt a public officer has no right to demand any bribe; but when he is hauled up before a criminal Court to answer a charge of having taken illegal gratification, the question whether any motive for payment or acceptance of bribe at all existed is certainly a relevant and material fact for consideration.

It was further argued that there was no other witness at the time the accused allegedly demanded Rs. 500/ from PW7 Satya Pal, the complainant, as illegal gratification for closing the case. In the absence of corroborative evidence the factum of alleged demand cannot said to have been established beyond doubt. In this regard reliance has been placed on Ayyasami v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1992(2) CLR 247, where also the want of independent evidence to establish the demand made by an appellant in respect of the alleged bribe was considered to be a factor which went against the prosecution. Similarly, in Ram Partap v. The State of Punjab, 1975(3) CLR 200, the independent evidence to prove the first incident, when the alleged demand of bribe was made by the accused, was not well established, the benefit of doubt went to the accusedpatwari and similar was the view taken in Ram Parkash v. State of Punjab, 1981(1) CLR 159. In Tarlok Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1983(1) RCR 382 , also it was observed that the demand for bribe should be corroboated by independent evidence. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) RCR 351 , wherein also the demand for illegal gratification was supported by the complainant alone it was not consideereed sufficient evidence. In Prabhu Dayal v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) RCR 374 , also there was no independent evidence in respect of the alleged demand of the bribe and the conviction of the accused recorded by trial Court was set aside.

The plea of the accusedappellant had been that Rajesh PW who was not known to the accused came to the shop and gave an envelope to Shri Baisakhi Lal shopkeeper stating that the envelope contained a letter meant for Yograj son of Shri Baisakhi Lal and that it was to be handed over to Yog Raj and a little, later a Head Constable and Reader of the SDO (Civil) came there and picked up the envelope and the accused was taken to the residence of the SDO and implicated in this case. The SDO (Civil) has only admitted that he had been a student at Narnaul and has denied this nearness with the complainant or his son. The SDO (Civil) has admitted that the slip Ex. DA was in his hand but not that the two names mentioned by him were those which he wanted the accused to recommended for nomination to Hafed.

DW2 Bishamber Dayal is the driver of the then SDO (Civil) Mahendergarh and he was attached with Jeep No. HNM71. He has specifically denied that this vehicle was at all utilised by PW4 Shri Ram Niwas on 21.6.1988 and has contradicted the version that the officer or the party travelled in the jeep much less that it was parked at the bus stand.

DW3 Shri Baisakhi Ram the proprietor of the shop in question, has deposed that a boy brought an envelope and told him that it was to be delivered to his son Yog Raj and a little later, Reader of the SDO (Civil) Mahendergarh, along with a constable came to his shop and picked up the envelope from the rack and the accused who was also present there, was taken away. It was in the evening that Shri Darshan Singh DSP also came to his shop. The version of the prosecution is also that Shri Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, reached the Police Station Mahendergarh at 5.30 p.m. on receipt of information about this occurrence which had allegedly taken place at 2.00 p.m.

On behalf of the accused it has been argued that Shri Narang Lal, Reader of the SDM who scribed the memo informing the police about the occurrence and other proceedings such as recovery memos etc., has not been examined by the prosecution and this is also a factor which goes against it. The learned Counsel for the accused has stressed that the accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of PW7 of Satya Pal and his son PW8 Rajesh Kumar without coopting any independent witness.

R.K. Juneja, the accusedpublic servant died on 23.1.1992. His wife Smt. Krishna Juneja, who moved an application under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, within one month of the death, has been granted leave to continue the appeal and in these circumstances, it has not abated.

In view of the evidence and reasons discussed above, the appellant is given benefit of doubt and the appeal is accepted, conviction and the sentences recorded by the trial Court are hereby set aside and the accused, now deceased, shall be deemed to have been acquitted. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the aforesaid widow.

Ordre accordingly.