- (1.)This appeal arises out of an order dated 28th January, 2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby Crl. Appeal No. 1002-SB of 2001 filed by the Appellant against his conviction for an offence punishable Under Sections 7 and 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been dismissed and the order passed by the trial court sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 2-1/2 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- affirmed. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. The Appellant, it is alleged, was working as lower division clerk (L.D.C.) in the Punjab Electricity Board. Pursuant to an F.I.R. lodged by the complainant-Amar Singh, a case Under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered in the Vigilance Bureau and a trap laid to catch one Rajinder Singh who was alleged to have demanded the bribe amount. The prosecution's case is that the complainant was sent along with shadow witnesses, Rajiv Sood and Karamjit Singh to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the said Rajinder Singh. The prosecution's further case is that a sum of Rs. 300/- was demanded by Rajinder Singh and on his instruction paid to the Appellant-Tarlok Chand. The amount was, in the course of the trap, allegedly recovered from the table of the Appellant-Tarlok Chand. Completion of the investigation eventually led to the presentation of a charge-sheet against both, Rajinder Singh and the Appellant-Tarlok Chand, for the offences, mentioned earlier. At the trial, the prosecution examined the complainant apart from the two shadow witnesses including the investigating officers. The trial court finally came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons and accordingly found them guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment, as indicated earlier. Both Rajinder Singh and the Appellant-Tarlok Chand preferred a common appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal Rajinder Singh passed away. The High Court has all the same dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and thereby affirmed his conviction and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.
(2.)Appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Nidesh Gupta, learned senior Counsel, strenuously argued that the courts below have fallen in a palpable error in convicting the Appellant for the offences, mentioned earlier. It was submitted that there was absolutely no evidence to either prove any demand or acceptance of bribe by Rajinder Singh or for that matter by the Appellant herein and that no presumption could be raised in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance, which were the two essential ingredients for proof of an offence punishable Under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was submitted that the complainant and so also the two shadow witnesses had turned hostile at the trial and completely belied the prosecution version that there was any demand at any stage or that any illegal gratification was ever paid to or accepted by the Appellant. Inasmuch as the courts below have, in the absence of any evidences, gone ahead to hold the Appellant guilty of the offences with which he is charged they have committed an error that deserved to be corrected. There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in the submission made by Mr. Gupta. It is not in dispute that the complainant did not support the prosecution version at the trial. Even the so-called independent witnesses sent as shadow witnesses have at the trial totally resiled from their versions. Under the circumstances, we are left only with the version of the investigating officer before whom the complainant is alleged to have lodged a complaint. But the statement of the investigating officer alone cannot help the prosecution in proving a demand or acceptance of payment of the bribe. All told the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges framed against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order passed by the trial court and so also that passed by the High Court are set aside. Since the Appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged.