Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Jagdeep Singh on 25 July, 2022
CRM-A-473-MA of 2015 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-473-MA of 2015 (O&M)
DECIDED ON:25th July, 2022
State of Haryana
.....APPLICANT-APPELLANT
VERSUS
Jagdeep Singh .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN.
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent.
***
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL)
This is an application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment
of acquittal dated 29.10.2014.
The case set up is that a complaint was made by Jeet Singh,
commission agent. He supplied 15,407 wheat bags to Haryana Agro Industries
through Billing-cum-Payment Agent (BCPA) Ram Mehar. Illegal gratification
of Rs.47,770/- was demanded by Jagdeep (Mandi Inspector)-respondent, for
release of balance payment. On complaint, a trap was laid, money was handed
over to respondent, he instructed that money be handed over to Manjeet saying
that the money was for shortage of wheat.
The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. However,
Manjeet Singh-PW3, Ram Mehar-PW4 did not support the case of the
prosecution that the amount was demanded for illegal gratification. Rather they
deposed that it was money for shortage of wheat which was due from
M/s Saurabh Trading Company and M/s Rammeshwar Dass Rajinder Parshad
Company. Inspector Sunil Kumar-PW11 deposed that the notes were lying on
the table and shadow witness told him that the respondent raised demand from
1 of 3
CRM-A-473-MA of 2015 (O&M) -2-
complaint for shortage of wheat. Then he left the office without taking money
and directed Security guard to receive the amount and directed Ram Mehar to
prepare the cheque. The shadow witness to the trap was not examined. Deepak,
District Manager- PW6 verified the fact that as per record Rs.47,770/- was due
against M/s Saurabh Trading Company and M/s Rammeshwar Dass Rajinder
Parshad Company for shortage of wheat. On failure of the prosecution to
prove its case, the respondent was acquitted.
Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court erred in
acquitting the respondent. In the hand wash test, the solution turned pink
meaning thereby that the respondent accepted the amount.
Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate appears for respondent and defends
the impugned order.
The trial Court considering the evidence threadbare found:
(i) That the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification. The respondent did not accept the money rather
he asked Manjeet Security Guard to accept the money which was for
shortage of wheat.
(ii) By the time the raiding party came to the spot, the
respondent was not present.
(iii) That Manjeet Security Guard did not support the case of the
prosecution, he stated that the respondent had not demanded the illegal
gratification.
(iv) That the document on record showed that the amount of
Rs.47,770/- was due from M/s Saurabh Trading Company and
M/s Rammeshwar Dass Rajinder Parshad Company and the letter for
recovery of the shortage was written prior to laying of trap.
(v) That PW3-Manjeet along with Ram Mehar were present at
the spot but the witnesses did not support the case of prosecution of
demanding of bribe.
2 of 3
CRM-A-473-MA of 2015 (O&M) -3-
The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court by considering the
above mentioned issues.
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 reason.
The petition is dismissed.
Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending application
if any is disposed of.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN)
th
25 July, 2022 JUDGE
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
