Gulshan Kumar v. State of Hry

IN

Whether only oper Pronounced or the Gulshan Kumar State of Haryana

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi

2.5.2005 and or Judge, Ambala, the Prevention o

2.

posted as Patw complainant As allegedly caught

3.

the amount rece already been qu and that no illeg THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

Re

Pro

Up rative part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced:

VERSUS a

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . Anshuman Dalal, Advocate for t . Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana -.- ANNU J. (Oral) is appeal is directed against t rder of sentence dated 04.05.20 whereby the appellant was conv of Corruption Act, 1988 and sent e prosecution case, briefly stat wari, demanded and accepted hwani Kumar (PW-10) for supp t red-handed in a trap laid by the e appellant denied the allegation eived by him related to legal fe uantified and entered in the offic gal gratification was ever demand JAB AND HARYANA ARH RA-S-895-SB-2005 (O&M) served on:-21.01.2026 onounced on:- 22.01.2026 ploaded on:-22.01.2026 operative part/full judgment

....Petitioner ....Respondent EEP PANNU the petitioner. a the judgment of conviction da 005 passed by the learned Spec victed under Sections 7 and 13(2) tenced accordingly. ted, was that the appellant, wh d a sum of Rs. 500/- from plying copies of mutation and w e Vigilance Bureau on 3.7.2002. ns and took a consistent defence t es for supply of copies, which h cial record prior to the alleged t ded or accepted.

ated cial ) of hile was that had

4.

Lea impugned judge stands proved o appreciated the version. Accuse accused that thi evidence.

5.

Thi including the do defence witness

6.

At the present case nature of that re gratification or l

7.

dated 01.07.200 Patwari. As per sought had alre prior to the date legal fees payab

8.

Thi business, much of correctness. prosecution vers If the legal fees arned counsel for State argued ement of conviction and order on record by all prosecution wi e testimony of all witnesses a d has not denied the acceptance s amount was accepted as legal is Court has carefully gone thro ocumentary evidence as well as es and contentions of Ld. counse the outset, it is necessary to ob e is not the mere receipt of mon eceipt, namely, whether the amo lawful remuneration. e prosecution itself brought on 02 (Ex.DA), which has been duly r this document, the mutation p ady been processed and the req e of the alleged trap. The said ble for supply of copies came to R is document is an official record prior to the vigilance proceeding Once this document is take sion regarding demand and acce s had already been assessed and d that there is no illegality in of sentence. Case of prosecut itnesses. Ld. trial court has righ and rightly discarded the defe of Rs.500/-. The defence set up fees is not substantiated by cog ough the entire evidence on reco s the statements of prosecution a el for the appellant and State. bserve that the core controversy ney, which stands admitted, but ount of Rs.500/- represented ille record Roznamcha Rapat No. 4 y proved by PW-6 Rajinder Kum proceedings for which copies w quisite charges had been quantif rapat clearly records that the to Rs.480/-. d prepared in the ordinary course gs, and carries a strong presumpt en into consideration, the en eptance of bribe becomes doubt entered on 01.07.2002, it becom

htly nce p by gent ord, and y in mar, were fied otal e of ntire tful.

difficult to com

03.07.2002 for w

9.

that such rapa unsustainable. fabrication or a discredited in manipulated doc

10.

Fur with the raid, ca that the amount of PW-9 assume with no apparen

11.

Office Kanungo copies and jama consistent with discarding this d

12.

that he did not admission weak

13.

gratification can bribe is said to h shows that the mprehend why the appellant wou work that already stood complete e learned trial court brushed asid at could have been prepared There is no evidence what ante-dating of Ex.DA. PW-6, w cross-examination. The defenc cument was never substantiated b rther, PW-9 Tehsildar G.R. Rohi ategorically stated that the appel received by him was towards le es great significance, as it eman nt motive to falsely support the ap e defence version also finds sup o, who proved the official rates abandis. His testimony establish lawful charges. The learned trial defence evidence without adequa e complainant PW-10 himself t know the exact legal fees p kens the prosecution case that the e possibility that the complainan nnot be ruled out. It is also note have been made in relation to su mutation had already been en uld demand illegal gratification ed. de this vital document by observ later. This reasoning is who tsoever to suggest interpolati who proved the document, was ce suggestion that Ex.DA wa by the prosecution. l, an independent officer associa llant had informed the raiding pa egal fees for copies. This statem nates from a senior revenue offi ppellant. pport from DW-1 Shri Joga Sin s of fees chargeable for supply hes that the amount of Rs.480/- w l court committed a serious erro ate reasons. admitted in his cross-examinat payable for obtaining copies. T e entire amount represented bribe nt mistook lawful charges as ille eworthy that the alleged demand upply of copies, whereas the rec ntered and processed prior to

n on ving olly ion, not s a ated arty ment ficer ngh, y of was r in This e. d of

alleged date o demanding a bri

14.

money and the p is not determina explanation for by the appellan official records.

15.

Act is a rebuttab successfully reb corresponded to established, the discharge.

16.

occurrence and doubt. PW-10 a discrepancies c prosecution case

17.

An sanction order E authority has m material, includ This infirmity fu f demand. When the work s ibe for the same becomes inheren e learned trial court has heavily phenolphthalein test. However, i ative, particularly when the accu the receipt of money. In the pr nt is not only plausible but is al e presumption under Section 2 ble presumption. In the facts of butted the presumption by sh o legal fees already assessed. burden shifts back upon the p e contradictions pointed out by presence of the appellant in th and PW-11 are not consistent o can be ignored, contradictions e cannot be lightly brushed aside nother important aspect is the Ex.PB does not reflect due app merely proved signatures with ing the defence of legal fees and urther weakens the prosecution c stood completed, the question ntly improbable. relied upon the recovery of tain it is well settled that recovery alo used offers a plausible and proba resent case, the explanation offe lso supported by contemporane 0 of the Prevention of Corrupt f the present case, the appellant howing that the amount receiv Once such a probable defence prosecution, which it has failed the defence regarding the place he Patwar Khana further add to on material aspects. Though mi s which go to the root of e. sanction for the prosecution. T plication of mind. The sanction hout demonstrating that relev d the rapat Ex.DA, was consider case.

of nted one able ered ous has ved e is d to e of inor ning vant

18.

Cri one favourable t alternative view tested on touchs

19.

notion, placing u and official reco infirmities and c

20.

In opinion that the amount of Rs.5 lawful remunera

21.

Acc conviction dated the learned Spec charges framed Corruption Act,

22.

refunded.

23.

Pen

January 22, 2026 tripti

Whether

Whether iminal jurisprudence mandates t to the accused must be adopted w possible, but the defence ver stone of documentary evidence a e learned trial court has approac undue emphasis on recovery wh ords. The impugned judgment, th cannot be sustained. view of the above discussion e prosecution has failed to prove 500/- accepted by the appellant ation. The appellant is entitled to cordingly, the present appeal d 02.05.2005 and the order of se cial Judge, Ambala, are set asid d against him under Sections 7 1988. e bail bonds shall stand discharg nding application(s), if any, is/are

r speaking/non-speaking : Speakin r reportable

: Yes/N that if two views are possible, . In the present case, not only is rsion appears more probable wh and surrounding circumstances. ched the matter with a preconceiv hile ignoring vital defence evide therefore, suffers from serious le n, this Court is of the conside e beyond reasonable doubt that t was illegal gratification and o the benefit of doubt. l is allowed. The judgment entence dated 04.05.2005 passed de. The appellant is acquitted of 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention ged. Fine, if any deposited, shall disposed of.

(MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ng

s an hen ved nce ered not of d by n of