NARINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

                     [2014] 13 S.C.R. 609


                      NARINDER SINGH                                 A

                               v.

              STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

              (Criminal Appeal No. 1564 f 2014)                      B

                        JULY25,2014

         [RANJAN GOGOi AND M. Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- s. 12 -Allegation
                                                                     c
 that appellant attempted to give bribe to ADM, Bharmourfor
 inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to
 give appellant supply orders for the supply of double-decker
 beds by corrupt or illegal means - Trial Court acquitted the        0
 appellant /Jy giving him benefit of doubt - High Court set
 aside the judgment of trial Court, and convicted appellant u/
 s. 12 - Propriety of - Held: On facts, proper, as charges made
 against the appellant were proved by the prosecution - High
 Court discussed the evidence of PWs as also DWs and                 E
 recorded a conclusive finding about the guilt of the appellant!
 accused on analyzing the entire .evidence - Even if part of
 investigation was carried out by an AS/ (PW-7), it cannot be
 said to be illegal - No serious prejudice was caused to
·appellant by reason of the investigation carried out - High         F
  Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area,
  there is a single line administration and lot of power is vested
  with the Resident Commissioner since the heads of various
  departments or competent authorities are not available in
  Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also            G
  the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour- Trial Court did not
  consider the gravity of the offence as contemplated under
  th() 1988Act.

                                                                     H
                               609
610         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2014] 13 S.C.R.


A       The prosecution case was that the accused-
  appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the
  complainant - PW-8, the then Additional District
  Magistrate, Bharmourfor inducing him, a public servant,
  to exercise his influence to give appellant supply orders
B for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal
  means. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the
  charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. In appeal filed
  by the State under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court set
  aside the judgment of the trial Court, and convicted the
C appellant under Section 12 of the Prevention of
  Corruption Act, 1988 and imposed upon him sentence
  of six months. Hence, the present appeal.
           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D           HELD:1. The impugned judgment reveals that the
      High Court discussed the evidence of the prosecution
      witnesses as also the evidence of the defence
      witnesses. On analyzing the entire evidence, the High
      Cou~ recorded a conclusive finding about the guilt of
E     the appellant/accused. It is evident that PW-7 who was
      posted as ASl/10 in the Bharmour Police Station
      requested the SHO to depute a gazette officer to
      investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation
F     had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be
      illegal. Nothing has been said from the side of the
      defence that serious prejudice was caused to the ·
      accused by reason of the investigation carried out. The
      High Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a
G     tribal area, there is a single line administration and lot of
      power is vested with the Resident Commissioner since
      the heads of various departments or competent
      authorities are not available in Bharmour, and at that time
      the ADM-complainant was also the Resident
H     Commissioner, Bharmour. [Para 11][615-G-H; 616-A-C]
  NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                  611


       2. The prosecution proved charges made against A
 the appellant. The provisions of law considered by the
  High Court ought to have been followed by the Trial
. Court. The Trial Court decided the matter as if the offence
  has been committed by the appellant under the
  provisions of Penal code and did not consider the gravity B
  of the offence as contemplated under the Prevention of
  Corruption Act, 1988. In the facts and circumstances of
  the case and seriousness of the offence, the view taken
  by the High Court needs no interference. [Paras 12, 13]
  [616-C-F]                                                   C
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 1564 of 2014.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 13/06/2012 in
CRLA No. 169/2008, 09/07/2012 in CRLA No. 169/2008 D
passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shim la.
     Tarun Gupta, S.L. Gupta, Virender Singh and Upendra ·
Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant.
      Surya Narain Singh,AAG, Ms. Pragati Neekhra and Ms.       E
Tulika Prakash, Advs., for the ·Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the F
judgment dated 13.6.2012 and order dated 9.7.2012
pronounced by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in
Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2008 preferred by the State,
whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court setting aside G
the judgment and order of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted
the appellant-accused guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short,
"the Act") and sentenced him to undergo six months
imprisonment.                                                    H
612        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A       3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at
  11 AM the accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of
  Rs.10,000/- to the complainant- the then Additional District
  Magistrate, Bharmour for inducing him, a public servant, to ·
  exercise his influence to give accused supply orders for the
B supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal means.
  Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the
  complaint. List of currency notes allegedly given by the accused
  were prepared and the police officials recorded the statements
  of other witnesses. The accused was charged with having
C committed the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not
  guilty and claimed trial.
          4. Complainant, who was in-charge of the administration
    of Bharmour area and sanctioning authority, appeared as PW-
 D 8 and stated that while he was sitting in his office accused
    entered in his office and talked with regard to the complaints
    of the quality of the furniture already supplied by him. Thereafter,
   ·accused offered to supply double decker beds for the
    Government Senior Secondary School, Holi. Upon which,
 E complainant explained that there must be a rate contract of
    those articles and these articles should be of good quality. In
    the meantime, a senior assistant-PW2 came inside his office
    and had a discussion with the complainant with regard to
    purchase of some door mats and left office room. Thereafter,
 F after using complainant's office bathroom with permission, the
    accused did not sit on the chair but pulled out the drawer of the
    table of the complainant and put some currency notes in the
    drawer, which were immediately picked up by the complainant
    raising objection on it. On this the accused replied that this
 G was his right (hak). The complainant then reprimanded him
    and informing the SHO Bharmour telephonically asked him to
    come to his office.
       5. The complainant also called his StatisticalAssistant-
 H PW1 and handed over the notes to him to prepare list of notes.
 NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                        613
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

In the meantime some other officials came into the office of A
the complainant. Upon reaching of SHO Bharmour-PW7 within
15 minutes, the complainant made and handed over a written
complaint along with 20 currency notes of the denomination of
Rs.500/- each, duly signed and sealed in a parcel. According
to the complainant he is not sure why the accused offered him B
Rs.10,000/-. Probably, it was with a view to procure further
supply order. The cross-examination of this witness is to the
effect that the accused had earlier supplied desks and benches
for which payment had been made to the accused. The
complainant has admitted that double-decker beds were C
required for the Govt. Girls Hostel at Holi and he could straight
way call the tenders from the parties concerned but in this case
 he had still not invited tenders. He, however, stated that he
 had issued oral directions to the Principal of the hostel to be in D
 touch with the contractors for supply of double decker beds.
      6. On the. other side, according to the defence, the
complainant used to give supply orders to the manufacturers
of furniture not belonging to Chamba district and in this
connection complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner, E
Chamba, and as such, a false case has been lodged by the
complainant against the accused, who is cashier and
spokesperson of Chamba Steel Furniture Manufacturing
Association. The defence also led evidence by examining
DW-1 Statistical Assistant, who stated that although F
complainant gave sanctions for purchase of various articles
to various departments in Bharmour area but the record of
such sanctions is not available with him as no such copies of
sanction orders are retained by his office. DW-2, owner of a
steel factory in Chamba, stated during examination that after G
transfer of complainant from Bharmour their units are getting
supply orders.
      7. Considering the respective contentions of both the
parties and scrutinizing the records of the case, the Trial Court    H
614        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 13 S.C.R.


A acquitted the accused of the charge by giving him the benefit
    of doubt. According to the Special Judge Chamba, the case
  . had been initially investigated by the then ASI Prem Chand-
    PW7 and the matter was not investigated by an authorized
    officer and there had been miscarriage of justice especially
B when the statement of the complainant was recorded by more
    than one investigating officer including PW-9 Dr. D.K.
    Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba. The other ground which
    weighed with the Trial Court was that there was no occasion
   for the accused to offer the bribe for getting the supply of double-
C decker bed as no quotation had been invited by PW-8 and
   there was no correspondence in this behalf. Therefore, there
   was no motive to give the bribe. The Trial Court also came to
   the conclusion that the defence version thC!t the ADM
D (complainant) was annoyed with the accused was a plausible
   and reliable version. Lastly, the Trial Court held that the
   prosecution has failed to prove as to what conversation actually
   transpired between the accused and the complainant.
        8. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the State
E preferred appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure contending that Trial Court did not take into
  consideration the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
  Act especially Section 20(2) and if it is proved that some money
  was offered then a presumption had to be raised that it was by
F way of illegal gratification.
        9. After hearing learned Additional Advocate General for
  the State and learned senior counsel appearing for the accused
  and considering case law and provisions of the Act, learned
G Single Judge of the High Court opined that the judgment
  delivered by the Trial Court is totally perverse and has been
  passed without appreciating the evidence or the legal
  provisions. Setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court, the
  High Court convicted the accused for an offence punishable
H
 NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                       615
                [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

under Section 12 of the Act and imposed upon him minimum           A
sentence of six_ months. Hence, the present appeal by special
leave by the accused.
       10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused
assailed the judgment passed in appeal on the ground, inter
                                                                  8
a/ia, that the High Court has not correctly appreciated and
interpreted the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. According to the learned counsel the investigation was
done by the police officer who was not an authorized officer in
terms of Section 17 of the Act and thereby the entire C
investigation is vitiated in law. The High Court also erroneously
drawn presumption under Section 20 of the said Act when the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the demand or offer of
any gratification. Le_arned counsel further submitted that the
presumption as contemplated under Section 20(2) of the Act         o
can be made applicable only when the public seNant accepted
the illegal gratification .. Learned counsel submitted that all
witnesses examined by the prosecution are subordinates of
the complainant and no independent witness was examined
to prove the charges. It was further contended that charge E
was framed by the Trial Court for the admitted bribe to the
 complainant for awarding the supply order of double decker
beds, but as a matter of fact no such supply order was
processed anywhere. Lastly, it was contended that no implicit
reliance on the testimony of the complainant can be placed F
unless corroborated by independent witnesses.
      11. The impugned judgment reveals that the High Court
discussed the evidence of t11e prosecution witnesses as also
the evidence of th~ defence witnesses. On analyzing the entire     G
evidence, the High Court recorded a conclusive finding about
the guilt of the appellant/accused. It is evident that PW-7 Prem
Chand who was posted as ASl/10 in the Bharmour Police
Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette
                                                                   H
616         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A officer to investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation
  had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal.
  Nothing has been said from the side of the defence that serious
  prejudice was caused to the accused by reason of the
  investigation carried out. The High Court rightly pointed out
B that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line
  administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident
  Commissioner since the heads of various departments or
  competent authorities are not available in Bharmour, and at
  that time the ADM-complainant was also the Resident
C Commissioner, Bharmour.
             12. While taking note of the finding recorded by the High
      Court, we are fully in agreement that the prosecution has
      proved charges made against the appellant. The provisions
o     of law considered by the High Court ought to have been
      followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter
      as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under
      the provisions of penal code. The Trial Court has not
      considered the gravity of the offence as contemplated under
E     the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
            .13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
      seriousness of the offence, we fully agree with the view taken
      by the High Court. The impugned judgment, therefore, needs
F     no interference. Hence this appeal has no merit and the same
      is dismissed.
         14. The appellant-accused is accordingly directed to
  surrender within a period of one month from today to undergo
  the six months sentence awarded by the High Court, failing
G which the Trial Court shall take necessary steps. The Registry
  is directed to immediately communicate this order to the Trial
  Court.


      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                            Appeal dismissed.