NARINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF H.P.
Bench: RANJAN GOGOI,M.Y. EQBAL
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001564-001564 / 2014
Diary number: 25986 / 2012
Advocates: TARUN GUPTA Vs
TULIKA PRAKASH
Page 1
‘ REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012)
Narinder Singh ………Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.Y. EQBAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment dated 13.6.2012 and order dated 9.7.2012
pronounced by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in
Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008 preferred by the State,
whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court setting aside
the judgment and order of acquittal of the Trial Court
convicted the appellant-accused guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
1
Page 2
Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced him to
undergo six months imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at
11 AM the accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of
Rs.10,000/- to the complainant – the then Additional District
Magistrate, Bharmour for inducing him, a public servant, to
exercise his influence to give accused supply orders for the
supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal means.
Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the
complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the
accused were prepared and the police officials recorded the
statements of other witnesses. The accused was charged
with having committed the aforesaid offences, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Complainant, who was in-charge of the administration
of Bharmour area and sanctioning authority, appeared as
PW-8 and stated that while he was sitting in his office
accused entered in his office and talked with regard to the
complaints of the quality of the furniture already supplied by
2
Page 3
him. Thereafter, accused offered to supply double decker
beds for the Government Senior Secondary School, Holi.
Upon which, complainant explained that there must be a
rate contract of those articles and these articles should be of
good quality. In the meantime, a senior assistant-PW2 came
inside his office and had a discussion with the complainant
with regard to purchase of some door mats and left office
room. Thereafter, after using complainant’s office bathroom
with permission, the accused did not sit on the chair but
pulled out the drawer of the table of the complainant and put
some currency notes in the drawer, which were immediately
picked up by the complainant raising objection on it. On this
the accused replied that this was his right (hak). The
complainant then reprimanded him and informing the SHO
Bharmour telephonically asked him to come to his office.
5. The complainant also called his Statistical Assistant-
PW1 and handed over the notes to him to prepare list of
notes. In the meantime some other officials came into the
office of the complainant. Upon reaching of SHO Bharmour-
3
Page 4
PW7 within 15 minutes, the complainant made and handed
over a written complaint along with 20 currency notes of the
denomination of Rs.500/- each, duly signed and sealed in a
parcel. According to the complainant he is not sure why the
accused offered him Rs.10,000/-. Probably, it was with a
view to procure further supply order. The cross-examination
of this witness is to the effect that the accused had earlier
supplied desks and benches for which payment had been
made to the accused. The complainant has admitted that
double-decker beds were required for the Govt. Girls Hostel
at Holi and he could straight way call the tenders from the
parties concerned but in this case he had still not invited
tenders. He, however, stated that he had issued oral
directions to the Principal of the hostel to be in touch with
the contractors for supply of double decker beds.
6. On the other side, according to the defence, the
complainant used to give supply orders to the manufacturers
of furniture not belonging to Chamba district and in this
connection complaint was made to the Deputy
4
Page 5
Commissioner, Chamba, and as such, a false case has been
lodged by the complainant against the accused, who is
cashier and spokesperson of Chamba Steel Furniture
Manufacturing Association. The defence also led evidence
by examining DW-1 Statistical Assistant, who stated that
although complainant gave sanctions for purchase of various
articles to various departments in Bharmour area but the
record of such sanctions is not available with him as no such
copies of sanction orders are retained by his office. DW-2,
owner of a steel factory in Chamba, stated during
examination that after transfer of complainant from
Bharmour their units are getting supply orders.
7. Considering the respective contentions of both the
parties and scrutinizing the records of the case, the Trial
Court acquitted the accused of the charge by giving him the
benefit of doubt. According to the Special Judge Chamba,
the case had been initially investigated by the then ASI Prem
Chand- PW7 and the matter was not investigated by an
5
Page 6
authorized officer and there had been miscarriage of justice
especially when the statement of the complainant was
recorded by more than one investigating officer including
PW-9 Dr. D.K. Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba. The
other ground which weighed with the Trial Court was that
there was no occasion for the accused to offer the bribe for
getting the supply of double-decker bed as no quotation had
been invited by PW-8 and there was no correspondence in
this behalf. Therefore, there was no motive to give the
bribe. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the
defence version that the ADM (complainant) was annoyed
with the accused was a plausible and reliable version.
Lastly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to
prove as to what conversation actually transpired between
the accused and the complainant.
8. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the State
preferred appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contending that Trial Court did not take into
consideration the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
6
Page 7
Act especially Section 20(2) and if it is proved that some
money was offered then a presumption had to be raised that
it was by way of illegal gratification.
9. After hearing learned Additional Advocate General for
the State and learned senior counsel appearing for the
accused and considering case law and provisions of the Act,
learned Single Judge of the High Court opined that the
judgment delivered by the Trial Court is totally perverse and
has been passed without appreciating the evidence or the
legal provisions. Setting aside the judgment of the Trial
Court, the High Court convicted the accused for an offence
punishable under Section 12 of the Act and imposed upon
him minimum sentence of six months. Hence, the present
appeal by special leave by the accused.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused
assailed the judgment passed in appeal on the ground, inter
alia, that the High Court has not correctly appreciated and
interpreted the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,
7
Page 8
1988. According to the learned counsel the investigation
was done by the police officer who was not an authorized
officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act and thereby the
entire investigation is vitiated in law. The High Court also
erroneously drawn presumption under Section 20 of the said
Act when the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
demand or offer of any gratification. Learned counsel
further submitted that the presumption as contemplated
under Section 20(2) of the Act can be made applicable only
when the public servant accepted the illegal gratification.
Learned counsel submitted that all witnesses examined by
the prosecution are subordinates of the complainant and no
independent witness was examined to prove the charges. It
was further contended that charge was framed by the Trial
Court for the admitted bribe to the complainant for awarding
the supply order of double decker beds, but as a matter of
fact no such supply order was processed anywhere. Lastly, it
was contended that no implicit reliance on the testimony of
8
Page 9
the complainant can be placed unless corroborated by
independent witnesses.
11. The impugned judgment reveals that the High Court
discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also
the evidence of the defence witnesses. On analyzing the
entire evidence, the High Court recorded a conclusive finding
about the guilt of the appellant/accused. It is evident that
PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour
Police Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a
gazette officer to investigate the matter. Even if the part of
investigation had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said
to be illegal. Nothing has been said from the side of the
defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by
reason of the investigation carried out. The High Court
rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there
is a single line administration and lot of power is vested with
the Resident Commissioner since the heads of various
departments or competent authorities are not available in
9
Page 10
Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also
the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.
12. While taking note of the finding recorded by the High
Court, we are fully in agreement that the prosecution has
proved charges made against the appellant. The provisions
of law considered by the High Court ought to have been
followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the
matter as if the offence has been committed by the
appellant under the provisions of penal code. The Trial Court
has not considered the gravity of the offence as
contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
seriousness of the offence, we fully agree with the view
taken by the High Court. The impugned judgment,
therefore, needs no interference. Hence this appeal has no
merit and the same is dismissed.
10
Page 11
14. The appellant-accused is accordingly directed to
surrender within a period of one month from today to
undergo the six months sentence awarded by the High
Court, failing which the Trial Court shall take necessary
steps. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate
this order to the Trial Court.
………………………………J. (Ranjan Gogoi)
……………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)
New Delhi July 25, 2014
11