OM PARKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 17-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·~ 
OM PARKASH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
JANUARY 17, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
' 'f 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 12 and 20-Discrepancy 
in prosecution case-Delay in filing FIR and contradiction in statements of 
prosecution witnesses not explained by prosecution-Held, accused entitled to c 
benefit of doubt and acquittal. 
The prosecution's case was that 'U' and his family members were 
accused in a criminal case in which PW-2, was investigating officer. U and 
" 
appellant approached PW-2 in his residence and offered a bribe of Rs. 
10,000/- for helping them in connection with the criminal case. PW-2 took D 
~ 
the money in presence of PW-3 and another person and sealed the same 
in a parcel and prepared a memo on the basis of which FIR was recorded. 
The DCP came to his residence after 4Yz hours and recorded the statement 
of the witnesses and took into possession the said sealed parcel. Upon 
investigation, appellant and U were charged under Section 12 of 
E 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Special Judge ordered conviction of 
appellant, which was upheld by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Admittedly, the offence took place at 7 in the morning. 
The police station was about 50 yards away from the policelines where F 
PW-2 was residing. It further stands admitted that telephone services were 
available both at the civil lines as also the police station. But, no attempt 
was made by PW-2 to inform the SHO of the police station immediately. 
The First Information Report was admittedly lodged after a long delay. 
Having regard to the distance of the police station as well as the CIA G 
Office, it is not understandable as to why the DSP came to the place of 
' 
occurrence only at about 11.30 a.m. and had remained at the spot for 
~ 
about three hours and as to why the statement of PW-2 was not recorded 
by the DSP. PW-2 himself said that his supplementary statement had been 
423 
H 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A recorded by the PW-4, but the same was not produced in court. 
(429-D-F( 
2.1. From the records, it appears that whereas according to PW-2, 
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was put in a packet and sealed, according to PW-
B 3, the DSP on his arrival opened the said packet, counted the money and 
put the same again in a packet and sealed the same. The DSP (PW-4) did 
not make any such statement in this behalf nor explained the discrepancies 
in the statement of PW-2 and PW-3. No explanation was furthermore 
offered as to why all parties including the accused persons remained at 
the spot till 11.30 a.m. although no FIR was lodged. (429-G-H; 430-A( 
c 
2.2. Admittedly, PW-2 although was not authorized to make any 
investigation, did so. The accused persons also had not allegedly been 
arrested but were not allowed to leave the place either. In a situation of 
this nature, the accused should have been taken to the police station 
immediately. Out of the two witnesses in whose presence the amount was 
D offered, one was not examined. The reason for his non-examination had 
not been explained by the prosecution. Moreover, the said witnesses 
although were allegedly present at the place of occurrence on official 
duties, the fact as to why two Head Constables at a time from the same 
police station would go to the residence of an Inspector at 7 in the morning 
E has not been disclosed. The entries in their roznamcha for going to the 
residence of informant have not been produced. Admittedly, no entry in 
the roznamcha has been made even on their return to the police station. 
The first informant and the witnesses are Inspector and Head Constables 
attached to a police station. They are presumed to know the implications 
of a criminal case. They are, thus, also presumed to know that the First 
F Information Report unless lodged at the earliest possible time may give 
rise to a suspicion about the correctness of the entire occurrence. 
[430-A-E) 
2.3. In view of the aforementioned discrepancies in the prosecution 
case, the defence story set up by the Appellant cannot be wholly 
G improbable. Furthermore, it is not a case where the burden of proof was 
on the accused in terms of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
Even otherwise, where demand has not been proved, Section 20 will also 
have no application. The Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and the 
judgment of conviction is set aside. 
H 
Union

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.