Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Shyam Lal on 15 November, 2022
CRM-A-143 of 2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-143 of 2021 (O&M)
DECIDED ON:15th November, 2022
State of Haryana
.....APPLICANT
VERSUS
Shyam Lal
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN.
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.
***
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL)
1. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal against the
judgment acquitting Shyam Lal (respondent) in FIR No.36 dated 4.9.2013,
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')
registered at Police Station SVB Hisar. The application is accompanied by an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of
delay of 142 days in filing the appeal.
2. The brief facts are that a complaint was made in the month of
December, 2012 by Kulbhushan, Proprietor of Agnihotri Infrastructure
Company, Ding Road, Sirsa (for short "the Concern"). The Concern was
awarded a contract for construction of International Girls Hostel in
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (for short "the
University''). The work was to be completed within one year, the time was
extended by six months but the work was not completed. The cheque for
doing the half work was issued. The work was left in between, the articles i.e.
doors and windows, lying at the spot were taken by the Concern without
1 of 5
CRM-A-143 of 2021 (O&M) -2-
permission of the University. FIR No. 744 dated 25.10.2012 regarding theft
was registered against the Concern. For completion of the work, the contract
was awarded to M/s Sukhdev Singh and Company, Hisar. It was alleged that
on 19.5.2012, complainant made a telephonic call to the respondent for
payment of the balance amount and the respondent demanded bribe money of
Rs.12,100/- for passing the bills. The conversation was recorded. On
completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and
charges framed. The prosecution to prove its case examined twenty-one
prosecution witnesses. The respondent in 313 Cr.P.C. statement pleaded false
implication. To support his defence he tendered Ex.DA and DB.
3. The trial Court after considering the facts and appreciating
evidence concluded that prosecution failed to prove that respondent made an
attempt to obtain illegal gratification for passing the bills of the complainant
and acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated 6.8.2019.
4. Learned State counsel submits that the trial Court erred in
acquitting the respondent, the complainant and his brother had supported the
case of prosecution.
5. The scope of interference in judgment of acquittal is well settled.
6. In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9)
Supreme Court Cases 479, the Supreme Court after considering various
judgments laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a
judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the
absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference
by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not
warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate
court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-
appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its
own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any
2 of 5
CRM-A-143 of 2021 (O&M) -3-
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion
keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in
favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is
available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every
person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by
the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should
not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on
the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own
conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion
arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law.
While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by
the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the
entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and
adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order
of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the
order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for
interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has ignored material
documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts
etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of
the trial Court depending on the materials placed."
7. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa
Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, has opined as under:
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be
examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1)
SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against
acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal
were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and
merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a
different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
8. The allegation against the respondent was that he demanded
3 of 5
CRM-A-143 of 2021 (O&M) -4-
Rs.12,100/- as illegal gratification being 2% commission of the bill amount.
As per the complainant 8% commission had already been paid. The
complainant relied upon conversation recorded on mobile phone but the
mobile was never produced. The complainant himself converted recording in
mobile into a CD and was sent to FSL Madhuban for comparison. There was
no certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Deposition of PW9-
Rajesh Soni, Deputy Director, FSL Madhuban did not enhance the case of the
prosecution. As per his deposition, there was no clear audible voice with
regard to the demand of bribe made by the respondent. It was stated that it
cannot be said that whether CD contains voice of respondent or not and the
possibility of doctoring the CD while conversion cannot be ruled out.
9. The complainant and his brother appeared as prosecution
witnesses and stated that they had not made any complaint for 8%
commission paid by them for clearance of bills. There was back drop to the
complaint i.e. the FIR was got registered by the University against the
Concern. It would not be out of place to mention that vide order dated
4.5.2013 a complaint made under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC by the
Concern against Abhey Ram Saini, Executive Engineer, P.K. Juneja, SDE,
J.S. Lamba, J.E. and Satbir Singh, Chief Security Officer, regarding the
allegations of demand and receipt of commission for passing the bills was
dismissed by the Court.
10. There is no factual or legal error, much less perversity, in the
impugned judgment. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible one. No
case is made out for interference in the judgment of acquittal.
4 of 5
CRM-A-143 of 2021 (O&M) -5-
11. The application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed.
12. Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been
considered on merits and dismissed, consequently, application for
condonation of delay is disposed of accordingly.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN)
th
15 November, 2022 JUDGE
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
5 of 5
