Gulshan Kumar vs State Of Hry
2026 Latest Caselaw 556 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gulshan Kumar vs State Of Hry on 22 January, 2026

           CRA-S-895-SB--2005 (O&M)                                                     -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                                                  -.-
                                                      CRA
                                                      CRA-S-895-SB-2005 (O&M)
                                                      Reserved on:
                                                               on:-21.01.2026
                                                      Pronounced on
                                                                  on:- 22.01.2026
                                                      Uploaded on:
                                                               on:-22.01.2026
           Whether only operative part of the judgment is
           Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced:            operative part/full judgment

           Gulshan Kumar                                                     ....Petitioner

                                                       VERSUS

           State of Haryana                                                 ....Respondent

           CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
                           MS JUSTICE MANDEE
                                      MANDEEP PANNU

           Present:            Mr. Anshuman Dalal,
                                            Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana
                                           -.-
           MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated

2.5.2005 and order of sentence dated 04.05.2005 04.05.2005 passed by the learned Special

Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced accordingly.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellant, while

posted as Patwari, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 500/ 500/- from the

complainant Ashwani Kumar (PW-10) (PW 10) for supplying copies of mutation and was

allegedly caught red-handed red handed in a trap laid by the Vigilance Bureau on 3.7.2002.

3. The appellant denied the allegations allegations and took a consistent defence that

the amount received by him related to legal fees for supply of copies, which had

already been quantified and entered in the official record prior to the alleged trap

and that no illegal gratification was ever demanded or accepted.

CRA-S-895-SB--2005 (O&M) -2-

4. Learned counsel for State argued that there is no illegality in the

impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence. Case of prosecution

stands proved on record by all prosecution witnesses. Ld. trial court has rightly

appreciated the he testimony of all witnesses and rightly discarded the defence

version. Accused has not denied the acceptance of Rs.500/ Rs.500/-.. The defence set up by

accused that this amount was accepted as legal fees is not substantiated by cogent

evidence.

5. This Court has has carefully gone through the entire evidence on record,

including the documentary evidence as well as the statements of prosecution and

defence witnesses and contentions of Ld. counsel for the appellant and State.

6. At the outset, it is necessary to obse observe rve that the core controversy in

the present case is not the mere receipt of money, which stands admitted, but the

nature of that receipt, namely, whether the amount of Rs.500/ Rs.500/- represented illegal

gratification or lawful remuneration.

7. The prosecution itself brought on record Roznamcha Rapat No. 491

dated 01.07.2002 (Ex.DA), which has been duly proved by PW PW-6 6 Rajinder Kumar,

Patwari. As per this document, the mutation proceedings for which copies were

sought had already been processed and the requisite charges had been quantified

prior to the date of the alleged trap. The said rapat clearly records that the total

legal fees payable for supply of copies came to Rs.480/ Rs.480/-.

8. This document is an official record prepared in the ordinary course of

business, much prior to the vigilance proceedings, and carries a strong presumption

of correctness. Once this document is taken into consideration, the entire

prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe becomes doubtful.

If the legal fees had already already been assessed and entered on 01.07.2002, it becomes

CRA-S-895-SB--2005 (O&M) -3-

difficult to comprehend why the appellant would demand illegal gratification on

03.07.2002 for work that already stood completed.

9. The he learned trial court brushed aside this vital document by observing observi

that such rapat could have been prepared later. This reasoning is wholly

unsustainable. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest interpolation,

fabrication or ante-dating ante of Ex.DA. PW-6, 6, who proved the document, was not

discredited in cross-examination.

cross The defence suggestion that Ex.DA was a

manipulated document was never substantiated by the prosecution.

10. Further, PW-9 PW 9 Tehsildar G.R. Rohil, an independent officer associated

with the raid, categorically stated that the appellant had informed the rraiding aiding party

that the amount received by him was towards legal fees for copies. This statement

of PW-99 assumes great significance, as it emanates from a senior revenue officer

with no apparent motive to falsely support the appellant.

11. The defence version version also finds support from DW DW-1 1 Shri Joga Singh,

Office Kanungo, who proved the official rates of fees chargeable for supply of

copies and jamabandis. His testimony establishes that the amount of Rs.480/ Rs.480/- was

consistent with lawful charges. The learned trial trial court committed a serious error in

discarding this defence evidence without adequate reasons.

12. The complainant PW-10 PW 10 himself admitted in his cross cross-examination examination

that he did not know the exact legal fees payable for obtaining copies. This

admission weakens the prosecution case that the entire amount represented bribe.

13. The possibility that the complainant mistook lawful charges as illegal

gratification cannot be ruled out. It is also noteworthy that the alleged demand of

bribe is said to have been been made in relation to supply of copies, whereas the record

shows that the mutation had already been entered and processed prior to the

CRA-S-895-SB--2005 (O&M) -4-

alleged date of demand. When the work stood completed, the question of

demanding a bribe for the same becomes inherently improbable.

14. The learned trial court has heavily relied upon the recovery of tainted

money and the phenolphthalein test. However, it is well settled that recovery alone

is not determinative, particularly when the accused offers a plausible and probable

explanation for the receipt of money. In the present case, the explanation offered

by the appellant is not only plausible but is also supported by contemporaneous

official records.

15. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act is a rebuttable presumption. In the facts of the present case, the appellant has

successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the amount received

corresponded to legal fees already assessed. Once such a probable defence is

established, the burden shifts back upon the prosecution, which it has failed to

discharge.

16. The contradictions pointed out by the defence regarding the place of

occurrence and presence of the appellant in the Patwar Khana further add to the

doubt. PW-10 10 and PW-11 PW are not consistent sistent on material aspects. Though minor

discrepancies can be ignored, contradictions which go to the root of the

prosecution case cannot be lightly brushed aside.

17. Another important aspect is the sanction for the prosecution. The

sanction order Ex.PB does not reflect due application of mind. The sanctioning

authority has merely proved signatures without demonstrating that relevant

material, including the defence of legal fees and the rapat Ex.DA, was considered.

This infirmity further weakens the prosecution prosecution case.

CRA-S-895-SB--2005 (O&M) -5-

18. Criminal jurisprudence mandates that if two views are possible, the

one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the present case, not only is an

alternative view possible, but the defence version appears more probable when

tested onn touchstone of documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances.

19. The learned trial court has approached the matter with a preconceived

notion, placing undue emphasis on recovery while ignoring vital defence evidence

and official records. The impugned impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from serious legal

infirmities and cannot be sustained.

20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the

amount of Rs.500/-

Rs.500 accepted by the appellant was illegal gratification and not

lawful remuneration. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

21. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment of

conviction dated 02.05.2005 and the order of sentence dated 04.05.2005 passed by

the learned Special Judge, Ambala, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the

charges framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

22. The bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine Fine,, if any deposited, shall be

refunded.

23. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

           January 22, 20266                                  (MANDEEP PANNU)
           tripti                                                JUDGE
                   Whether speaking/non-speaking
                             speaking/non speaking : Speaking
                   Whether reportable                : Yes/No