State Of Haryana vs Bodh Raj Patwari
2022 Latest Caselaw 9607 P&H

CRM-A-1008-MA of 2015                                      [1]

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                                         CRM-A-1008-MA of 2015
                                         Date of Decision: 24th August, 2022
State of Haryana
                                                                  ... Applicant

                          Versus

Bodh Raj Patwari
                                                                 ... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present :    Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
                              ***

AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral)

This application seeking leave to appeal is filed aggrieved of

the acquittal of Bodh Raj (respondent) in case of FIR No. 46 dated

3.10.2013, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (for short, 'the Act'), registered at Police Station SVB, Hisar.

The brief facts as set up by the prosecution are that a complaint

was moved by Baljinder Singh. He stated that he had advanced loan of

Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.70,000/- to Jagsir Singh and Sham Lal, respectively.

To secure the loan, they had mortgaged the land and handed over the

possession. On repayment of the loan, the complainant executed affidavit

giving no objection for redemption of the mortgaged land. The complainant

contacted the respondent for redeeming the mortgaged land. A demand of

Rs.2,000/- was made by the respondent for doing the needful. On the

application of the complainant, trap was laid, Block Development and

Panchayat Officer, Bhuna was appointed as Duty Magistrate and Lovepreet

Singh was made the shadow witness. The complainant was given four

1 of 5

CRM-A-1008-MA of 2015 [2]

initialed and laced currency notes worth Rs.2,000/-. The shadow witness

and the complainant were sent to the office of the respondent for handing

over the laced currency notes to the respondent on his demand. On

receiving a signal from the shadow witness, the raiding party apprehended

the respondent, recovered the tainted currency from the pocket of his shirt.

His hands and shirt were washed with sodium carbonate, the colour turned

pink.

After grant of sanction to prosecute, challan was presented.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses.

PW5-Ravinder Kumar, BDPO, Bhuna deposed on the lines of the case of

prosecution, gave the details of procedure followed for laying the trap and

for recovery of the tainted currency. PW4-Lovepreet Singh (shadow

witness) deposed on the same lines. The complainant supported the

prosecution case. Sanction order (Ex.P19) was proved by PW9-Ram Dhari,

Reader to District Magistrate. PW8-Raj Kumar Field Kanungo stated that

Inspector Bhupender Sharma handed over him original mortgage deeds and

affidavits of the complainant. Inspector Vigilance got attested the photo

copies of documents, these were taken in possession by the police. Girdhari

Lal, Clerk, SK Branch, DC Office, Fatehabad proved the posting order of

the respondent. Investigating Officer, Bhupender Sharma appeared as PW-

12. He stated the facts regarding registration of FIR, permission granted by

the Deputy Commissioner and procedure adopted for conducting the raid.

In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the

respondent pleaded false implication and denied the allegations against

him.

                                2 of 5

 CRM-A-1008-MA of 2015                                         [3]

            In defence, the respondent examined               DW1-Sadhu Ram

Patwari, who proved the summoned record. As per the record, the

respondent was posted as Patwari of village Meond Bogawali. According to

rapat roznamcha, on 3.10.2013, copies of mutation were got prepared by

complainant and government fee of Rs.2070/- was due. He stated that the

fee could not be deposited by the respondent due to registration of the

present case.

The trial court acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated

29.1.2015. It was considered that it was not the duty of the complainant to

get the mortgaged land redeemed as he was the lender. He failed to produce

evidence that he was authorised by Jagsir Singh and Sham Lal to get the

land redeemed. The court noted that it was not the duty of the respondent

being Patwari to redeem the land. No document or No Objection Certificate

were forwarded by any authority to the respondent for entering the

mutation. The respondent was not having the official capacity of doing the

work for which illegal gratification was demanded. This coupled with the

fact that the shadow witness stated that he had not heard the conversation

between the complainant and the respondent, as he was standing outside the

room made story of prosecution doubtful. The trial court had taken note of

the discrepancies among the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. It

was also noted that the lendee never approached for redeeming of the land.

Trial Court examined the sanction order and concluded that it was passed

without application of mind. It was stated in the sanction order that the

respondent had demanded Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification from the

complainant for making report regarding parole case which was factually

3 of 5

CRM-A-1008-MA of 2015 [4]

incorrect.

The defence taken by the respondent was that Rs.2070/- was

due as government fee for the copies of revenue record got prepared by the

complainant. The defence was accepted as probable. It was held that

presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn against the

respondent as he had not accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.

Further, that defence raised was substantiated by deposition of DW1-Sadhu

Ram Patwari. It was revealed that the complainant was not owning land but

in his cross-examination he stated that he used to visit Patwar Khana two to

four times a month. These facts lended support to the statement of the

respondent that the complainant received illegal remuneration from the

public to get their work done in Patwar Khana and he kept the grudge

against the revenue officials who refuse to oblige him. He was habitual of

making false complaints. The said aspect created a dent in the story put

forth by the prosecution. Benefit of doubt was given to the respondent.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial court erred

in acquitting the respondent as prosecution witnesses had supported the

case of the prosecution and tainted money was recovered from the

respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

Law is well settled that for conviction under Section 7 of the

Act, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has to be proved.

Presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn against the accused

if it is proved that he had accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain undue

advantage. Presumption under Section 20 of the Act is rebuttable.

                                 4 of 5

 CRM-A-1008-MA of 2015                                       [5]

The defence taken by the respondent was accepted as a

probable defence. It was substantiated by the deposition of DW1-Sadhu

Ram Patwari and the record produced by him. As per the record produced,

government fee of Rs.2070/- was due from the complainant. The

prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the illegal

gratification by the respondent.

No case is made out for grant of leave, as no legal or factual

error, much less perversity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment.

The view taken by the trial court is plausible.

The application is dismissed.

(AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE 24th August, 2022.

mk
             Whether reasoned/speaking            Yes
             Whether reportable                   Yes




                                   5 of 5