Raj Bahadur Singh vs. State Of Uttarakhand

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
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
2

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/-.
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 2 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.
3

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.
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.
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.
CONTENTIONS
8. The Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently
submitted that the complainant had a strong motive to implicate
4

appellant in the false case so that his business of contraband
liquor could flourish without disturbance. It was submitted that
the complainant did not indicate the date, time, and place as to
when appellant raised demand of Rs. 500/- as a gratification to
exonerate complainant from the crime. It was further contended
that there were material contradictions in the statements of PW 1
& PW 2 regarding the time of arrival of the accused at the
relevant spot where the gratification was offered and that the
witnesses were examined after a gap of 14 years. It was
contended that PW-2 was well acquainted with the complainant
and thus an interested witness whose testimony ought not to
have been relied upon. Additionally, it is submitted that the trap
was jointly organised by the complainant and the police in which
the appellant who is an honest constable was trapped. The
appellant further contended that he was not afforded an
opportunity to examine himself as a defence witness as per the
provisions of Section 21 of P.C. Act. It is submitted that
complaint is a result of personal enmity which complainant bears
against appellant accused. Lastly, it was argued that the tainted
currency notes were not produced before the Court.
5

9. Per contra , Ld. Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand
specifically contended that FIR was lodged on 19.06.1990. He
further submitted that sealed sample of solutions was sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory Agra for examination and the
Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted
charge sheet against the accused appellant. It is also submitted
that the High Court had dismissed the appeal of the appellant
accused and sustained conviction. It is submitted that
complainant had clearly deposed that appellant accused had
demanded bribe from complainant and threatened to implicate
him in false case. The case of complainant was further supported
by PW 3 who in his cross-examination has stated that
complainant was present in his office on 18.06.1990 and
submitted application. It is argued that appellant accused had
sufficient opportunity to demand illegal gratification as appellant
was present in the raid proceedings which were conducted on
16.06.1990 at complainant’s village. It is also submitted that it
cannot be said that there are many contradictions in the
statements of PW-1 & PW-2 regarding the amount of bribe or that
the complaint was lodged out of personal enmity because
complainant has proved identity of currency notes which were
6

received by accused appellant and PW-2 who is an independent
witness has corroborated the entire chain of occurrence. Further,
in response to the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the trap was allegedly jointly laid by the
complainant and the police, it is submitted that the complainant
merely approached the Vigilance Department with his grievance.
The complainant had no role whatsoever in the constitution or
selection of the trap party. The decision to take cognizance of the
complaint was taken independently and at the sole discretion of
the Vigilance Officer.
ANALYSIS
10. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at
length and perused the material placed on record.
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,
7

the complainant and Jeet Singh-PW-2, the independent witness
or the shadow witness.
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.
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
8

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.
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.
16. The High Court in its judgment appreciated the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-2, as follows:
“8. Now, we have a glance upon prosecution evidence. PW1
Kashmir Singh has narrated the entire incidents in his chief
examination righty from raiding of village including his house by
accused appellant in suspicion of manufacturing of contraband
liquor till acceptance of Rs. 500/- as gratification by accused. He
has also proved the identity of currency notes, which were received
9

by Raj Bahadur Singh in his hands. He was nabbed by team of
Vigilance Department, which was in close proximity of the place of
occurrence. After the incidents, hands of Kashmir Singh and Raj
Bahadur Singh were was`hed by simple water and the same
became colourful. PW2 Jeet Singh is an independents witness who
has corroborated the entire chain of occurrence in pith and
substance leaving minor discrepancies, which are ignorable. PW3
Nand Kishor Tyagi was Inspector in Vigilance Department at the
relevant time. He was also a witness of giving and taking of
gratification and has proved all factual and legal aspects, in similar
manner, as stated by the previous two fact witnesses. It is
worthless to reproduce the statements of all the witnesses, at the
stage of appeal when it has already been elaborately discussed in
the judgment of trial Court. PW4 Daya Krishan Joshi, Head
constable was simply a formal I witness, who noted down the First
Information Report lodged by Kahsmir Singh and has proved the
same. PW 5 Mohd. Vakil Khan was the Investigation officer, who
has also proved the entire sequence of the investigation and
submission of charge sheet in the case.”
17. An attempt was made to submit that the defence witness
namely, the owner of the restaurant is not supporting the case of
prosecution and as such the case of the prosecution is a doubtful
one. The High Court has dealt with this submission and assigned
justifiable reason to submit that the oral testimony of the
restaurant owner-defence witness cannot be accepted as against
the reliable version of PW-2. It may not be out of place to
reproduce the observations of the High Court, which are as
under:
“11. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that
restaurant owner was not product by the prosecution in
order to ratify the version of other witnesses while he has
been produced as defence witness by the accused and he
has altogether denied any occurrence of raid conducted by
Anti-Corruption in his restaurant on the relevant date. This
witness is not trustworthy at all because he is a local resident of
town Khatima. He runs his restaurant there and accused
10

appellant also hails from the same town so naturally the
court can discern that a small restaurant owner cannot incur
wrath of his native person and that too of a Government servant
Constable of excise Police, who has been linked with other
Government servants, just to open door for all the troubles in
running his small restaurant whereas complainant Kashmir
Singh is residents of a village, far away from Khatima , so in
all probabilities it is not possible for this small restaurant owner at
Tehsil Khatima to depose the truth against accused before court in
the above circumstances.”
18. Ld. counsel for the appellant also made an attempt to
submit before this Court that no opportunity was given to the
Appellant to examine himself as Defence Witness. This ground, in
our opinion, holds no water, in view of the observations of the
High Court and the same reads thus:-
“13. Accused has not examined himself as defence witness ,
as per the above provision of the Act in order to rebut the
prosecution version and assert his plea that he has been falsely
implicated by Kashmir Singh because Kashmir Singh was
challenged by him for manufacturing of contraband liquor. The Act
provides an opportunity to the accused to get himself examined in
the open court on oath in order to reveal the truth but he has not
dared to avail this opportunity.”
19. It may not be out of place to state here that the statement of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
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
11

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.
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.
23. Learned counsel has also made an attempt to submit that
both the Courts failed to appreciate the defence raised by the
Appellant of the enmity of the complainant against the Appellant.
24. The perusal of the deposition of PW-1 clearly shows that he
has stated before the Court that he was indulged in liquor trade
and action was already initiated against him three times and he
was released on bail. As such, PW-1 was facing the prosecution
launched against him. Thus, we are not inclined with this
submission of the ld. counsel for the Appellant.
12

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
13

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.
26. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
........................................J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 13, 2026.
14