Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Babu Lal on 7 July, 2022
239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-32022-2021 in/and
CRM-A-472-2021
Date of Decision: 7th July, 2022
State of Haryana
... Applicant
Versus
Babu Lal
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present : Mr. Gurbir Singh Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
***
AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral)
1. This is an application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant
of leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondent in FIR No. 14 dated
12.10.2018 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for short 'the Act') registered at P.S. SVB, Gurugram. The
application is accompanied by an application for condoning the delay of 62
days.
2. Brief facts are that a complaint was received by Vigilance
Department from Ramesh Yadav. It was alleged that on the basis of the
decision given by the Supreme Court in favour of the forefathers of the
complainant, documents were produced before the SDM, Gurugram and
order for redeeming the mortgage land was passed. A report was prepared
which was given to the Tehsildar Manesar who marked it to Halqa Patwari.
Halqa Patwari handed over the report to Girdawar Babu Lal (respondent)
who cancelled the report and demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- from
complainant for redeeming the land. On complaint a trap was laid,
respondent was caught red handed.
1 of 4
CRM-32022-2021 in/and -2-
CRM-A-472-2021
3. In contravention of State Government instructions, instead of a
Gazetted Officer, Nazir of Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram was deputed
for supervising the raid. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution,
especially from the deposition of the Investigating Officer (for short 'IO'),
it emerged that the respondent had already sent a request for providing
police protection in connection with the delivery of possession of the land
to the complainant. The Patwari had given notices to both the parties
regarding cancellation of mortgage. Further in cross-examination IO stated
that respondent had made an application before the Tehsildar on
8th October, 2018 for providing police help and all proceedings relating to
the file of the complainant had been completed by the respondent. There
was a contradiction in the allegation of the complainant and the statement
made by the IO. The complainant alleged that respondent cancelled the
report handed over to him by Halqa Patwari. As per the IO, no report was
found on the file which was cancelled or objected to by the respondent. For
non-compliance of the instructions of the State Government and on failure
of the prosecution to prove its case, the respondent was acquitted.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that trial court erred
in acquitting the respondent as he was caught red handed.
5. It would be appropriate, at this stage, to reproduce para 14 of
the impugned judgment wherein reliance has been placed upon the
instructions issued by the Government of Haryana dated 7th January, 2019.
"In this context first of all, this court finds it appropriate to
maintain that from time to time, Government of Haryana has
been issuing instructions for appointment of Duty magistrate
in order to supervise the raids pertaining to gratification
cases and in those instructions, Government of Haryana had
directed all the Deputy Commissioners of State of Haryana to
2 of 4
CRM-32022-2021 in/and -3-
CRM-A-472-2021
depute Gazetted officers to supervise the raid and on account
of paucity of Gazetted officers, Government of Haryana in
continuation of previous instructions had issued latest
instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners of State of
Haryana vide its letter no. 4/2/2018-II sent by Additional
Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana Vigilance
Department dated 07.01.2019 and addressed to all the
Deputy Commissioners for deputing Duty Magistrate for
raid in trap cases of State Vigilance Bureau Haryana. In the
said letter, Government of Haryana while reiterating its
previous instructions for appointment of Gazette officers in
trap cases vide letter no. 6183 SVB (H) dated 28.06.2018 and
the instructions contained in Circular Letter no. 21/3-2000-
4JJ (1) dated 04.05.2018 definition of Gazetted officer for the
purpose of supervising the trap cases was extended and
directions were issued to take the service of gazetted officers
of the other departments i.e. Executive Engineer, Principals of
School and college etc. etc. and vide this letter Government of
Haryana had not made it compulsory to associate only HCS
officers or Tehsildar or Naib Teshildar but Government of
Haryana had made it mandatory to atleast appoint the
Gazetted officer as a Duty Magistrate and appointment of any
officer lessor in the rank of Gazetted officer shall cast cloud
on the genuineness of prosecution version because in that
eventuality, the doubt comes upon the prosecution to justify
the appointment of non gazetted officers as Duty Magistrate.
Since in the present case, the said directions of Government of
Haryana have not been complied with by the prosecution,
hence it casts a genuine doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution version because in this case Class-III official
from the office of Deputy Commissioner was appointed as
Duty Magistrate".
6. In the present case, a Class III employee Nazir of the Deputy
Commissioner was appointed for conducting the raid. Prosecution failed to
putforth any reason before the trial Court for non-compliance of the
instructions. Further the version putforth by the prosecution was found
doubtful, as the day on which the raid was conducted, the accused had
already completed the work at his end and written a letter for providing
police help for delivery of the possession. The parties to the mortgage were
given notice by the Patwari of cancellation of the mortgage deed. There is
no challenge to the factual findings arrived at by the trial Court. The
prosecution failed to discharge the onus casted upon it.
3 of 4
CRM-32022-2021 in/and -4-
CRM-A-472-2021
7. There is no dispute on the proposition that the acceptance of
the amount in itself is not enough for conviction under the Act.
8. 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 conclusion arrived at by the trial court is plausible.
9. The application is dismissed.
10. Since the application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed
on merits, the application for condonation of delay is disposed of
accordingly.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN )
JUDGE
th
7 July, 2022
Parveen Sharma
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
