Appeal
Appeal Against High Court Order Upholding Conviction under PC Act
1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and order High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and sustained the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 15 days under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C. Act’], and to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 30 days for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.
Brief facts
Appellant is an Excise Constable and complainant is a contraband liquor manufacturer, during the raid, appellant demanded Rs.500 as illegal gratification to the complainant
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the accused appellant, Raj Bahadur Singh [hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant/accused’], was serving as a Constable in the Excise Department in District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The complainant, Kashmir Singh (PW1) [hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’], was allegedly involved in the business of manufacturing contraband liquor and had been challenged by the Excise party on three previous occasions. On fourth occasion i.e. on 16.06.1990, during a raid on the complainant’s village, complicity of the complainant in the said crime was also noticed. It is alleged that the complainant was asked to sign some papers by the appellant and was threatened that if Rs 500/- of illegal gratification was not given then Challan would be forwarded to the competent Court. The appellant further claimed he had already prepared a “temporary bail” bond for the complainant, which would only be honored upon payment. Complainant feeling constrained by persistent threats at the hands of appellant agreed to pay Rs. 500/-.
Based on the information from the complainant vigilance conducted a phenolphthalein test trap while giving a bribe to the appellant and subsequently taken him into custody
3. However, on 18.06.1990 the complainant filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) who thereafter marked an endorsement and ordered the Inspector to organise the trap. Accordingly, a trap was organized at a restaurant in Khatima and as a prelude to trap, complainant handed over five currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Inspector Mahender Pal Singh who tainted these currency notes with “Phenolphthalein Powder” in the presence of 2 independent witnesses. On 19.06.1990 around 11:00 a.m. trap party which included police team along with independent witnesses Sree Jeet Singh/PW- 2 & Sree Bhagwan Singh went inside the restaurant and in presence of complainant recovered five currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- from the appellant. Appellant’s hands were then soaked in Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned pinkish, confirming the presence of phenolphthalein powder. Memo of action taken on the spot was prepared and the appellant was taken into judicial custody.
FIR registered
4. It was in this background, the criminal machinery was set into motion and an FIR Case No. 114 of 1990 was registered under P.C. Act. Upon investigation, a chargesheet was submitted vide case no 368 of 1990 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. Special Session Trial No. 46 of 1991 was registered.
Trial court convicted the appellant
5. The Trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated 03.03.2006, convicted the appellant to undergo R.I. for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 15 days under Section 7 of P.C. Act, and to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 30 days for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.
High Court dismissed the appeal
6. On appreciation of evidence on record, the High Court vide its judgment dated 13.04.2012 dismissed the appeal, sustaining the conviction.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court and the Trial Court, the appellant is before us.
Arguments of the parties in a nutshell
Appellant’s Arguments (Para 8)
Complainant had motive to falsely implicate due to prior raids on contraband liquor business; no specific date/time/place for demand mentioned; contradictions in PW1/PW2 timing of accused arrival (examined after 14 years); PW2 acquainted/interested witness; trap jointly organized by complainant/police; no opportunity to examine self under Section 21 PC Act; complaint from personal enmity; tainted currency notes not produced.
Respondent’s Arguments (Para 9)
FIR lodged 19.06.1990; sealed solutions sent to FSL Agra; chargesheet filed; PW1 clearly deposed demand/threat; PW3 confirmed PW1’s 18.06.1990 complaint; appellant had opportunity during 16.06.1990 raid; no material contradictions in PW1/PW2; PW2 independent witness corroborated; complainant had no role in trap party selection; Vigilance independently acted on complaint.
Analysis
10. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at length and perused the material placed on record.
High Court has committed no error in upholding the conviction
11. In our considered opinion, the High Court committed no error in upholding the judgment and order of the Trial Court and thereby sustaining the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Admittedly, the prosecution case rest on the ocular evidence and the Trial Court as well as the High Court dealt with the oral testimonies of two material and important witnesses namely, Kashmir Singh-PW-1, the complainant and Jeet Singh-PW-2, the independent witness or the shadow witness.
Though the complainant previously operated liquor business no liquor was found in his house during the raid conducted by the appellant despite he demand for a bribe
12. Kashmir Singh-PW-1 in his detailed version stated before the Court that he is indulged in the liquor trade. He also submits before the Court that on earlier three occasions, he was booked as an offender and was released on bail. He further deposed before the Trial Court that on 16.06.1990, the Excise Department raided several places in his village and caught contraband liquor. His house was also raided but nothing was recovered from his house. He was forced to sign certain documents and the accused demanded an amount of Rs.500/- and threatened him that if he fails to pay the amount, he will put the complainant-Kashmir Singh behind bars in a false case. As the complainant was not ready to comply with the demand of the accused, he approached the police authorities. Then, he stated before the Court the necessary detail about the action initiated by the authorities and the steps taken by the authorities pursuant to lodgement of his report.
Contradiction or omission found in the testimony of PW.1 does not the make the prosecution version doubtful
13. Perusal of the deposition of this witness shows that he gave a detailed description about the pre-trap steps taken by the authorities, the details of the trap conducted by the authorities and post-trap measures taken by the authorities. PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination and he stood firm to his version. Though an attempt was made to submit before this Court that there are contradictions or omissions in the version of PW-1, we are unable to find any such contradiction or omission so as to make the version of this witness doubtful.
Since PW.2 is acquainted with the complainant and corroborates him cannot be considered an interested witness
14. PW-2/Jeet Singh, the shadow witness supports the case of prosecution, though an attempt was made to submit that PW-2 is an interested witness.
15. Perusal of the testimony of this witness shows that PW-2 in his deposition before the Court stated that the complainant-Kashmir Singh is not his relative but person of his knowledge. Now, merely on the statement that PW-2 had an acquaintance with PW-1, one cannot jump to the conclusion that PW-2 was an interested witness. To brand the witness as an interested witness, the defence is required to bring specific material before the Court showing the hostility of the particular witness.
Defence of omission to produce the currency notes in the court was not raised before the Trial court or in the appellate court but only in the SLP hence rejected
20. Ld. counsel for the Appellant submitted before this Court that the currency notes in question were not produced before this Court and such omission was fatal to the case of the prosecution.
21. Though the submission of the learned counsel looks attractive at the first blush, we are unable to accept the same for the simple reason that this ground was never raised neither before the Trial Court nor before the High Court. This ground is not even raised as one of the grounds in the special leave petition filed in this Court. This was orally raised by the ld. counsel before this Court at the time of arguing the matter.
Handing over the currency and subsequent phenolphthalein powder test is proved beyond a reasonable doubt
22. On the contrary, the perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the High Court clearly shows that the complainant along with the raiding party went to the restaurant. The act of handing over the currency notes to the accused and acceptance of the currency notes and thereafter, the hands and the currency notes being exposed to water turned pink showing the trace of phenolphthalein powder, is also recorded in the duly drawn panchnama. Thus, we are unable to accept the submission of ld. counsel for the appellant.
Conclusion
Appeal dismissed with modification
25. Thus, considering all abovementioned aspects, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court as well as High Court on appreciation of evidence, committed no error in holding the appellant guilty for the offences committed under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. As such, the interference of this Court insofar as conviction being recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court is not warranted, but at the same time considering the circumstances namely, the appellant was of the age of approximately 40 years at the time of offence in question and now, he is approximately 75 years of age; considering the material, particularly, order of this Court dated 21.08.2012 whereby this Court refused the appellant exemption from surrendering, the surrender certificate dated 15.10.2012 whereby the appellant surrendered and subsequently, the order of this Court dated 07.01.2013 whereby the bail was granted to the appellant, the appellant was behind the bars for the period of approximately 2 months and 24 days. Considering these facts, we are of the opinion that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court can be modified to the extent of minimum sentence for the said offences namely, rigorous imprisonment of 6 months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment of 1 year for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. Accordingly, sentence of the appellant stands modified to rigorous imprisonment of 6 months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment of 1 year for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.
Reference
Acts and Sections
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act):
– Section 7: Public servant taking undue advantage/gratification
– Section 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct (chargesheet)
– Section 13(2): Punishment for criminal misconduct
– Section 21: Accused examination as defense witness
Other:
– Section 313 Cr.P.C.: Accused statement
Party
Raj Bahadur Singh (appellant) versus State of Uttarakhand (respondent) - Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2013 - 2026 INSC 239 - March 13, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
