STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PRITHI SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-9-15
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on September 16,1997

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
PRITHI SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STALE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. TEJ RAM PATWARI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. RAM. ASREY [REFERRED TO]
S.V. KAMESHWAR RAO AND ANOTHER VS. STATE. [REFERRED TO]
RAGHBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
AYYASAMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.)State has filed this "appeal against the judgment of Special Judge, Hamirpur dated 23,9.1991. By means of impugned judgment, respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruptions Act. (hereinafter! referred to as the Act), Punishable under Section 5(1)(2) thereof.
(2.)As per prosecution case on 18.12.1986 at about 11 -30 A.M. at village Balh, Tehsil Hamirpur respondent was posted as Patwari (Consolidation of I Bahl Circle). In his capacity as public servant in the consolidation Department f of H.P. Government, he obtained Rs.1000/ - as gratification other than his legal remuneration as a motive/reward for doing. an official act of entering on the basis of Will from Shakti Chand (PW -8.) as also in his aforesaid capacity either by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as a public servant obtained for himself Rs.100/ - and thus committed the offence under Section 5(1} of the Act for which he was liable to be punished under Section 5(2) thereof.
(3.)Further case of the prosecution is that Shakti Chand, (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) is the son of Daroga Ram and his brother is Prem Chand (PW -6). Father of PWs 6 & 8 according to them, died on 13.11.1986 and he had executed a registered will (Ex. PH) dated 29.12.1980 In these circumstances Prem Chand -PW claims to have approached the respondent on 28.11.1986 for entering mutation on the basis of this Will in favour of both the brothers and according to him a bottle of Rum along with Rs.20/ - was offered as gift to the respondent by the former. Complainant claims to contacted the respondent on a number of occasions, but was put off on one of the pretext of the other. Lastly, on 17.12.1986 respondent is stated to have in demand of Rs. 100/ - as a bribe for entering mutation which was promised to be paid on the next day i.e. 18.12.1986. Further facts as revealed from the Prosecution case are that on 18.12.1986 complainant accompanied t Priihvi Singh and Bhagwa Dass (PW -9) contacted Chhaju Ram (PW -12) at v Riha who was then posted as D.S,P (Vigilance) and this witness was appraised about the demand made by the respondent. On the basis of statement recorded by the respondent vide Ex. PK. F.I.R. Ex.PK/1 was registered, at Police Station Anti Corruption Zone at Himarpur. Two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/ - were taken from the complainant and were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were handed back to the complainant for being passed on to the respondent and memo in this behalf was prepared vide Ex. PL. In addition to the above facts. PW -8 is further stated to have disclosed to Chhaju Ram Dy. S.P. that Kanungo Bhajan Lal had also demanded bribe of Rs.200/ - for comparing the mutation that was to be entered by the respondent. In this background F.I.R. 20/86 relates to the present case whereas F.I.R. No.21/86 relates to the case that was registered against said Bhajan Singh Kanungo.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.