PHULA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2014-3-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: HIMACHAL PRADESH)
Decided on
March 03,2014
PHULA SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMNARESH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]MUNISH MUBAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR SINGH @ RAJU @ BATYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAVINDRANATH MAGANBHAI PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-152] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SAU. UJWALA RATNAKAR MANE [LAWS(BOM)-2023-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA VIDYUTA MANDAL COMPANY LIMITED VS. GANESH RAM DHIWAR [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRATA MAJUMDER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRATA MAJUMDER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMSHANKAR VS. URMILA & ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-110] [REFERRED TO]
KINJI SAITO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2020-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA VIDYUTA MANDAL COMPANY LIMITED VS. TERAS RAM KAHRA [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA,VIDDUTTA MANDAL VS. KIRAN YADAVA [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. VINAYKANT RAMANLAL DALAL [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-299] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HIRALAL HARKISHANDAS NAVANI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DOLARRAI TRIKAMBHAI VAGHELA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-129] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHANKAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
DOLLU VENKATARAMANA VS. THE STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRATA MAJUMDER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SUKHA RANJAN DAS VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHAMJIBHAI ASHABHAI MAHESHWARI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMIR MAHERALI SOMANI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. KAMLESH MANHARPRASAD DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-300] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA,VIDYUTA VITARAN CO LTD VS. LAKSHAMI BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CHHATTISGARH ELECTRICITY BOARD, SARANGARH VS. UMESH AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH POWER (COMPLAINANT) DISTRIBUTION CO LTD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
ISLAM ANSARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. LOCHAN SHRIVAS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
HAFEEZ KHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
SONTI NAGARAJU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. NAUSHAD VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2023-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SARASVATI MACHINERY STORES [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-365] [REFERRED TO]
SAKRA ORAON VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL NAYAK VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR RAI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF U.T. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MATTA APPAYA PATRO [LAWS(ORI)-2024-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KUMAR @ KAHAR @ JITENDRA KAHAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
DHRANGADRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD VS. HABIBBHAI JUMMABHAI JAM [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMCHANDRA SAMBHAJI KARANJULE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-168] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANNA VS. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-274] [REFERRED TO]
BARGAVAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-189] [REFERRED TO]
GANGAMMA W/O ANNAPPA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-2-158] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSHANAND AVDOOT @ GHANSHYAM PRASHAD VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
JAVED AHMED AND OTHERS VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL BASAR LASKAR VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
THIPPESHAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNARAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-406] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(COMPLAINANT) (O & M) DIVISION VS. MINA DEVI AGRAWALA [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA, VIDYUTA MANDAL VS. RAVISHANKAR PATEL [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK IBRAHEEM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHORE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KARAN PATHAK VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH RAJYA,VIDDUTA MANDAL VS. SUBHASH KUMAR PRAJAPATI [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL @ KHEM CHAND KHATRI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-242] [REFERRED TO]
VANDANA PARIHAR (VYAS), WIFE OF SHRI KAPIL PARIHAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHAKAR BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2024-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
BHAIRAB DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BHANUBHAI CHANDUBHAI MIYATRA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. L DORAIRAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2024-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
VITHALBHAI DEVJIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-209] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.2011/7.9.2011, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2009 reversing the judgment and order dated 19.2.2009, passed by Ld. Special Judge, Hamirpur in Corruption Case No.1 of 2008 acquitting the appellant from the Charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court has awarded the appellant sentence of one year RI and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of six months.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:
A. That on 20.6.2007, the appellant was working as Kanungo of the particular area and one Vakil Chand filed a complaint against the father of the complainant that he encroached upon the land thus, asked for demarcation. The appellant investigated the matter and found that one and half kanals of the land of Vikil Chand had been encroached upon by the complainant's father.
B. The complainant raised the objection about this demarcation and at that time the appellant met the complainant at village Kheri and demanded "Chai Pani" to cancel the demarcation report. It was in view thereof that the complainant contacted the appellant on 10.7.2007 on his mobile and the appellant demanded the bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. The complainant Prabhat Chand lodged an FIR with the Police Station of State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Hamirpur alleging demand of bribe by the appellant.
C. The appellant informed the complainant that he would visit his residence and he should pay the said amount. In the negotiation the deal was struck to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant came to the residence of the complainant on 10.7.2007 and demanded the bribe. In view of the complaint already lodged by Prabhat Chand, the trap was laid and the appellant was arrested and after investigating the matter the chargesheet was filed which ultimately culminated into Corruption Case No.1 of 2008 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. After conclusion of the trial by judgment and order dated 19.2.2009 the Ld. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur acquitted the appellant of all the charges.
D. Aggrieved, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that demarcation had already been made and the report had been submitted before the Tahsildar, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand any amount. As the complainant's father had encroached upon the land of Vakil Chand to the tune of one and half kanals and the appellant had shown this fact in his report the complainant was having the grudge against him. Therefore, he has falsely been enroped. The High Court failed to appreciate that there are different parameters to reverse the judgment of acquittal and in this respect failed to apply the law laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments. There is no evidence of demand or acceptance of the bribe. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:
A. That on 20.6.2007, the appellant was working as Kanungo of the particular area and one Vakil Chand filed a complaint against the father of the complainant that he encroached upon the land thus, asked for demarcation. The appellant investigated the matter and found that one and half kanals of the land of Vikil Chand had been encroached upon by the complainant's father.
B. The complainant raised the objection about this demarcation and at that time the appellant met the complainant at village Kheri and demanded "Chai Pani" to cancel the demarcation report. It was in view thereof that the complainant contacted the appellant on 10.7.2007 on his mobile and the appellant demanded the bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. The complainant Prabhat Chand lodged an FIR with the Police Station of State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Hamirpur alleging demand of bribe by the appellant.
C. The appellant informed the complainant that he would visit his residence and he should pay the said amount. In the negotiation the deal was struck to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. The appellant came to the residence of the complainant on 10.7.2007 and demanded the bribe. In view of the complaint already lodged by Prabhat Chand, the trap was laid and the appellant was arrested and after investigating the matter the chargesheet was filed which ultimately culminated into Corruption Case No.1 of 2008 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. After conclusion of the trial by judgment and order dated 19.2.2009 the Ld. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur acquitted the appellant of all the charges.
D. Aggrieved, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that demarcation had already been made and the report had been submitted before the Tahsildar, therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand any amount. As the complainant's father had encroached upon the land of Vakil Chand to the tune of one and half kanals and the appellant had shown this fact in his report the complainant was having the grudge against him. Therefore, he has falsely been enroped. The High Court failed to appreciate that there are different parameters to reverse the judgment of acquittal and in this respect failed to apply the law laid down by this Court in a catena of judgments. There is no evidence of demand or acceptance of the bribe. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.