Punjab And Haryana High Court Acquits Patwari Convicted For Taking ₹2500 Bribe In 2002

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently acquitted a public servant convicted for accepting bribe in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that evidence of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of bribe was not available.

The appellant, a patwari, in 2004 had appealed against his conviction and sentence under the provisions of Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was the case of the appellant that he was falsely implicated and wrongly convicted for the offence of demanding a bribe for allegedly making corrections in land records.

The appellant argued that he was forcibly lifted from his residence along with his motor cycle and the case was foisted upon him while he was in the police station. Furthermore, his case was that the shadow witness had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant and that there was no evidence to support either 'demand' or 'acceptance' of bribe by the appellant.

The case of the prosecution, on the other hand, was that the appellant-patwari demanded a bribe of Rs. 2500 for correction of land records relating to the redemption of the mortgaged land of the father of the complainant. The investigating agency had set up a trap wherein five notes, each of denomination Rs. 500 were marked and laced with Phenolphthalein powder. A Sub Inspector was deputed as a shadow witness to catch the Patwari red-handed.

As per the prosecution, upon a signal from the complainant, the appellant was apprehended and laced currency notes were recovered from a purse kept in the pocket of his pants. The prosecution argued that upon washing the hand, and pocket of pants of the appellant, the colour of the solution turned pink. After grant of prosecution sanction, the challan was filed, charges were framed and the appellant was found guilty by the trial court in November 2004

Justice Avneesh Jhingan in the judgment dated October 17 said the recovery of the tainted currency in itself is not enough for conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act. It is a settled legal position that demand and acceptance has to be proved for conviction under Section 7, the court said.

"The presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn if the acceptance of the amount is proved and for proving the acceptance, demand is pre-requisite. It is also settled that presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be inferred for conviction under Section 7 of the Act and not under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The defence taken by the appellant has to be tested on probabilities of preponderance. The onus is not as heavy on the accused as on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt," the court said.

The court placed reliance on the decisions in K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, 2022(2) RCR (Criminal) 195, B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 410 and State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153.

Ruling that there is no evidence to substantiate the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant, the court said appellant had taken a defence that he was picked from his house on 10.3.2002 at 1.00 PM. The statement was corroborated by his wife during the trial.

"Two Patwaris Jeewan Dass and Satish Kumar who are the witnesses to the arrest memo Ex.DX were examined as DW3 and DW4 respectively. As per them, they reached the police station on 10.3.2002 at 2.00 PM, the appellant was already sitting in the police station. They were made to sign on blank arrest memo and further that they received the information around 12.30 to 1.15 PM that the appellant has been taken by the police officials. It would be appropriate to mention here that as per prosecution the appellant was apprehended at 2.15 PM. The defence taken by the appellant was substantiated by the depositions of DW2 to DW4 and creates a dent on the story of the prosecution," said the court.

It further said the evidence in the shape of hand wash test and recovery of laced currency notes from the purse of the appellant in such circumstances cannot be made sole basis for acceptance of bribe. "On failure to prove acceptance of bribe, presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn against the appellant," said the court.

The judgment of conviction and order of quantum cannot be upheld on account of failure of the prosecution to prove "the sine qua non for conviction i.e. demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification", Justice Jhingan while setting aside the trial court verdict and order of sentence.

Case Title: Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana