LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus SOHAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 810 :':--.. " -+ ~ A STATE OF PUNJAB v. SOHAN SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2006) B MAY 15, 2JC9 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: c s. 31 (1) r/w s. 13 (2) - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - Held: Prosecution has not been able to establish any demand on the part of the accused - Independent witness of the incident, who was a Government D servant, not examined - High Court found serious discrepancies in regard to events that took place prior to the l ·'f raid - View taken by High Court being a plausible one, Supreme Court would not interfere with the same - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. E The respondent was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable u/s 13(1) read with s. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that in spite of the sanction of an electric connection + ~,... for a 5 HP motor pump to the complainant (PW-5), the F respondent, a Junior Engineer with the Punjab State Electricity Board, was not releasing the electric connection. On 22.2.1988, the complainant along with his friend PW-6 went to the office of the respondent who was said to have demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-. The matter G was settled at Rs. 200/- which the complainant stated to -\. ~ be paid at 2:30 or 3:00 p.m. the same day. Meanwhile the complainant reproted the matter to Vigilance Department. A trap w_as laid and the respondent was stated to be found caught with the marked currency notes of Rs. 200/ H 810 STATE OF PUNJAB v. SOHAN SINGH 811 • + - The trial court convicted the accused of the offence A charged, but the High Court acquitted him. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD: 1.1. Indisputably the complainant (PW-5) and B PW-6 are friends. The complainant had applied for grant ~- of a high tension connection, which could be granted in terms of the seniority list only, and after installation of the transformer. The respondent, who was a Junior Engineer, had no role to play in the matter. Priority in the matter of c grant of connection could be granted only by the higher authorities in the Board. [Para 11] [817-C-D] 1.2. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is corroborated by the testimony of defence witness to the D ?' ;- effect that on 22.12.1988, the complainant insisted for release of the electricity connection out of turn and on refusal by the respondent an altercation took place and the former threatened to teach the latter a lesson. Further the defence witness (DW-1) stated that on the date of E incident while the respondent was at his tea stall, the complainant came there and tried to forcibly put currency >- notes in th pant pocket of the respondent who resisted. ---.lJ" Meanwhile the police reached there; the currency were in the hands of the complainant and the police took the F notes from him and also took him. Strangely enough, this witness was not cross-examined on the correctness of the said statement. [Para 12] [817-F-G;· 818-A-B] ' 1.3. In the circumstances, the evideric·e of an 1 independent witness, namely. 'IS' who was an officer G ~ working in the Treasury Department, was crucial, but he was not examined on the ground that he was won over.It is ordinarily not expected that a Government servant would be won over so easily. [Para 17] [819-F-G] H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R. ' -; t ~ ~ A 1.4. The High Court, upon consideration of the materials brought by the prosecution, found serious discrepancies in regard to the events that had taken place prior to the raid. Furthermore, the trial court failed to take into consideration the effect of deposition of PW- B 9 as also the defence witnesse's. Evidence of PW-9 to the effect that the respondent had no role to play in the matter, thus assumes significance. DW-1 was not cross- examined at all. Except giving him some suggestions, no - -+ question was put to him to discredit his evidence. The c prosecution has also not been able to establish that any demand was made by the respondent. [Para 17] (819-G- H; 820-A-B] ; -- 1.5. The view taken by the High Court, therefore, was a plausible view. Accordingly, this Court, in exercise of D its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, would not in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.