CRA-S-895-SB v. MANDEEP PANNU

, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anshuman Dalal Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) MANDEEP PANNU J.

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

2.5.2005 and order of sentence dated 0 and order of sentence dated 04.05.2005 passed by the learned Special 4.05.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced accordingly. the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced accordingly. the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced accordingly.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellant, while The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellant, while The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellant, while The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellant, while from the as Patwari, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 500/- from the as Patwari, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 500/ posted as Patwari, demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 500/ 10) for supplying copies of mutation and was complainant Ashwani Kumar (PW-10) for supplying copies of mutation and was 10) for supplying copies of mutation and was complainant Ashwani Kumar (PW handed in a trap laid by the Vigilance Bureau on 3.7.2002. allegedly caught red-handed in a trap laid by the Vigilance Bureau on 3.7.2002. allegedly caught red

3. ns and took a consistent defence that The appellant denied the allegations and took a consistent defence that ns and took a consistent defence that The appellant denied the allegatio the amount received by him related to legal fees for supply of copies, which had the amount received by him related to legal fees for supply of copies, which had the amount received by him related to legal fees for supply of copies, which had 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 already been quantified and entered in the official record prior to the alleged trap already been quantified and entered in the official record prior to the alleged trap already been quantified and entered in the official record prior to the alleged trap and that no illegal gratification was ever demanded or accepted. and that no illegal gratification was ever demanded and that no illegal gratification was ever demanded TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.22 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-895-SB- -2005 (O&M) -2-

4. argued that there is no illegality in the Learned counsel for State argued that there is no illegality in the argued that there is no illegality in the Learned counsel for State impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence. Case of prosecution impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence. Case of prosecution impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence. Case of prosecution impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence. Case of prosecution on record by all prosecution witnesses. Ld. trial court has rightly stands proved on record by all prosecution witnesses. Ld. trial court has rightly on record by all prosecution witnesses. Ld. trial court has rightly on record by all prosecution witnesses. Ld. trial court has rightly he testimony of all witnesses and rightly discarded the defence appreciated the testimony of all witnesses and rightly discarded the defence he testimony of all witnesses and rightly discarded the defence he testimony of all witnesses and rightly discarded the defence . The defence set up by version. Accused has not denied the acceptance of Rs.500/-. The defence set up by version. Accused has not denied the acceptance of Rs.500/ version. Accused has not denied the acceptance of Rs.500/ accused that this amount was accepted as legal fees is not substantiated by cogent accused that this amount was accepted as legal fees is not substantiated by cogent accused that this amount was accepted as legal fees is not substantiated by cogent accused that this amount was accepted as legal fees is not substantiated by cogent evidence.

5. s carefully gone through the entire evidence on record, This Court has carefully gone through the entire evidence on record, s carefully gone through the entire evidence on record, This Court ha including the documentary evidence as well as the statements of prosecution and including the documentary evidence as well as the statements of prosecution and including the documentary evidence as well as the statements of prosecution and including the documentary evidence as well as the statements of prosecution and defence witnesses and contentions of Ld. counsel for the appellant and State. defence witnesses and contentions of Ld. counsel for the appellant and State. defence witnesses and contentions of Ld. counsel for the appellant and State.

6. rve that the core controversy in At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the core controversy in At the outset, it is necessary to obse At the outset, it is necessary to obse the present case is not the mere receipt of money, which stands admitted, but the the present case is not the mere receipt of money, which stands admitted, but the the present case is not the mere receipt of money, which stands admitted, but the the present case is not the mere receipt of money, which stands admitted, but the represented illegal nature of that receipt, namely, whether the amount of Rs.500/- represented illegal nature of that receipt, namely, whether the amount of Rs.500/ nature of that receipt, namely, whether the amount of Rs.500/ gratification or lawful remuneration. gratification or lawful remuneration.

7. itself brought on record Roznamcha Rapat No. 491 The prosecution itself brought on record Roznamcha Rapat No. 491 itself brought on record Roznamcha Rapat No. 491 The prosecution 6 Rajinder Kumar, dated 01.07.2002 (Ex.DA), which has been duly proved by PW-6 Rajinder Kumar, dated 01.07.2002 (Ex.DA), which has been duly proved by PW dated 01.07.2002 (Ex.DA), which has been duly proved by PW Patwari. As per this document, the mutation proceedings for which copies were Patwari. As per this document, the mutation proceedings for which copies were Patwari. As per this document, the mutation proceedings for which copies were Patwari. As per this document, the mutation proceedings for which copies were charges had been quantified sought had already been processed and the requisite charges had been quantified sought had already been processed and the requisite sought had already been processed and the requisite The said rapat clearly records that the total prior to the date of the alleged trap. The said rapat clearly records that the total The said rapat clearly records that the total prior to the date of the alleged trap. legal fees payable for supply of copies came to Rs.480/-. legal fees payable for supply of copies came to Rs.480/ legal fees payable for supply of copies came to Rs.480/

8. This document is an official record prepared in the ordinary course of This document is an official record prepared in the ordinary course of This document is an official record prepared in the ordinary course of This document is an official record prepared in the ordinary course of much prior to the vigilance proceedings, and carries a strong presumption business, much prior to the vigilance proceedings, and carries a strong presumption much prior to the vigilance proceedings, and carries a strong presumption much prior to the vigilance proceedings, and carries a strong presumption of correctness. Once this document is taken into consideration, the entire of correctness. Once this document is taken into consideration, the entire of correctness. Once this document is taken into consideration, the entire of correctness. Once this document is taken into consideration, the entire prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe becomes doubtful. prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe becomes doubtful. prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe becomes doubtful. prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe becomes doubtful. y been assessed and entered on 01.07.2002, it becomes If the legal fees had already been assessed and entered on 01.07.2002, it becomes y been assessed and entered on 01.07.2002, it becomes If the legal fees had alread TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.22 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-895-SB- -2005 (O&M) -3- difficult to comprehend why the appellant would demand illegal gratification on difficult to comprehend why the appellant would demand illegal gratification on difficult to comprehend why the appellant would demand illegal gratification on difficult to comprehend why the appellant would demand illegal gratification on

03.07.2002 for work that already stood completed. 03.07.2002 for work that already stood completed. 03.07.2002 for work that already stood completed.

9. he learned trial court brushed aside this vital document by observing he learned trial court brushed aside this vital document by observi he learned trial court brushed aside this vital document by observi The learned trial court brushed aside this vital document by observi that such rapat could have been prepared later. This reasoning is wholly that such rapat could have been prepared later. This reasoning is wholly that such rapat could have been prepared later. This reasoning is wholly that such rapat could have been prepared later. This reasoning is wholly unsustainable. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest unsustainable. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest unsustainable. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest unsustainable. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest interpolation, interpolation, interpolation, interpolation, 6, who proved the document, was not fabrication or ante-dating of Ex.DA. PW-6, who proved the document, was not 6, who proved the document, was not fabrication or ante The defence suggestion that Ex.DA was a discredited in cross-examination. The defence suggestion that Ex.DA was a The defence suggestion that Ex.DA was a discredited in cross manipulated document was never substantiated by the prosecution. manipulated document was never substantiated by the prosecution. manipulated document was never substantiated by the prosecution.

10. 9 Tehsildar G.R. Rohil, an independent officer associated Further, PW-9 Tehsildar G.R. Rohil, an independent officer associated 9 Tehsildar G.R. Rohil, an independent officer associated Further, PW aiding party with the raid, categorically stated that the appellant had informed the raiding party with the raid, categorically stated that the appellant had informed the r with the raid, categorically stated that the appellant had informed the r that the amount received by him was towards legal fees for copies. This statement that the amount received by him was towards legal fees for copies. This statement that the amount received by him was towards legal fees for copies. This statement that the amount received by him was towards legal fees for copies. This statement 9 assumes great significance, as it emanates from a senior revenue officer of PW-9 assumes great significance, as it emanates from a senior revenue officer 9 assumes great significance, as it emanates from a senior revenue officer 9 assumes great significance, as it emanates from a senior revenue officer with no apparent motive to falsely support the appellant. with no apparent motive to falsely support the appellant. with no apparent motive to falsely support the appellant.

11. The defence version also finds support from DW The defence versi 1 Shri Joga Singh, on also finds support from DW-1 Shri Joga Singh, Office Kanungo, who proved the official rates of fees chargeable for supply of Office Kanungo, who proved the official rates of fees chargeable for supply of Office Kanungo, who proved the official rates of fees chargeable for supply of 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/- was copies and jamabandis. His testimony establishes that the amount of Rs.480/ copies and jamabandis. His testimony establishes that the amount of Rs.480/ ial court committed a serious error in consistent with lawful charges. The learned trial court committed a serious error in ial court committed a serious error in consistent with lawful charges. The learned tr discarding this defence evidence without adequate reasons. discarding this defence evidence without adequate reasons. discarding this defence evidence without adequate reasons.

12. The complainant PW-10 himself admitted in his cross The complainant PW examination 10 himself admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know the exact legal fees payable for obtaining copies. This that he did not know the exact legal fees payable for obtaining copies. This that he did not know the exact legal fees payable for obtaining copies. This that he did not know the exact legal fees payable for obtaining copies. This weakens the prosecution case that the entire amount represented bribe. admission weakens the prosecution case that the entire amount represented bribe. weakens the prosecution case that the entire amount represented bribe. weakens the prosecution case that the entire amount represented bribe.

13. The possibility that the complainant mistook lawful charges as illegal The possibility that the complainant mistook lawful charges as illegal The possibility that the complainant mistook lawful charges as illegal The possibility that the complainant mistook lawful charges as illegal gratification cannot be ruled out. It is also noteworthy that the alleged demand of gratification cannot be ruled out. It is also noteworthy that the alleged demand of gratification cannot be ruled out. It is also noteworthy that the alleged demand of gratification cannot be ruled out. It is also noteworthy that the alleged demand of n made in relation to supply of copies, whereas the record bribe is said to have been made in relation to supply of copies, whereas the record n made in relation to supply of copies, whereas the record bribe is said to have bee shows that the mutation had already been entered and processed prior to the shows that the mutation had already been entered and processed prior to the shows that the mutation had already been entered and processed prior to the shows that the mutation had already been entered and processed prior to the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.22 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-895-SB- -2005 (O&M) -4- alleged date of demand. When the work stood completed, the question of alleged date of demand. When the work stood completed, the question of alleged date of demand. When the work stood completed, the question of alleged date of demand. When the work stood completed, the question of demanding a bribe for the same becomes inherently improbable. demanding a bribe for the same becomes inherently demanding a bribe for the same becomes inherently

14. The learned trial court has heavily relied upon the recovery of tainted The learned trial court has heavily relied upon the recovery of tainted The learned trial court has heavily relied upon the recovery of tainted 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 money and the phenolphthalein test. However, it is well settled that recovery alone money and the phenolphthalein test. However, it is well settled that recovery alone 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 is not determinative, particularly when the accused offers a plausible and probable is not determinative, particularly when the accused offers a plausible and probable 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 explanation for the receipt of money. In the present case, the explanation offered explanation for the receipt of money. In the present case, the explanation offered 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 by the appellant is not only plausible but is also supported by contemporaneous by the appellant is not only plausible but is also supported by contemporaneous 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 The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption is a rebuttable presumption. In the facts of the present case, the appellant has Act is a rebuttable presumption. In the facts of the present case, the appellant has is a rebuttable presumption. In the facts of the present case, the appellant has is a rebuttable presumption. In the facts of the present case, the appellant has successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the amount received successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the amount received successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the amount received successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the amount received corresponded to legal fees already assessed. Once such a probable defence is corresponded to legal fees already assessed. Once such a probable defence is corresponded to legal fees already assessed. Once such a probable defence is corresponded to legal fees already assessed. Once such a probable defence is shifts back upon the prosecution, which it has failed to established, the burden shifts back upon the prosecution, which it has failed to shifts back upon the prosecution, which it has failed to established, the burden discharge.

16. The contradictions pointed out by the defence regarding the place of The contradictions pointed out by the defence regarding the place of The contradictions pointed out by the defence regarding the place of 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 occurrence and presence of the appellant in the Patwar Khana further add to the occurrence and presence of the appellant in the Patwar Khana further add to the occurrence and presence of the appellant in the Patwar Khana further add to the doubt. PW-10 and PW sistent on material aspects. Though minor 10 and PW-11 are not consistent on material aspects. Though minor sistent on material aspects. Though minor discrepancies can be ignored, contradictions which go to the root of the discrepancies can be ignored, contradictions which go to the root of the discrepancies can be ignored, contradictions which go to the root of the discrepancies can be ignored, contradictions which go to the root of the prosecution case cannot be lightly brushed aside. prosecution case cannot be lightly brushed aside. prosecution case cannot be lightly brushed aside.

17. Another important aspect is the sanction for the prosecution. The Another important aspect is the sanction for the prosecution. The Another important aspect is the sanction for the prosecution. The Another important aspect is the sanction for the prosecution. The does not reflect due application of mind. The sanctioning sanction order Ex.PB does not reflect due application of mind. The sanctioning does not reflect due application of mind. The sanctioning sanction order Ex.PB authority has merely proved signatures without demonstrating that relevant authority has merely proved signatures without demonstrating that relevant authority has merely proved signatures without demonstrating that relevant authority has merely proved signatures without demonstrating that relevant material, including the defence of legal fees and the rapat Ex.DA, was considered. material, including the defence of legal fees and the rapat Ex.DA, was considered. material, including the defence of legal fees and the rapat Ex.DA, was considered. material, including the defence of legal fees and the rapat Ex.DA, was considered. ecution case. This infirmity further weakens the prosecution case. This infirmity further weakens the pros TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.22 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-895-SB- -2005 (O&M) -5-

18. Criminal jurisprudence mandates that if two views are possible, the Criminal jurisprudence mandates that if two views are possible, the Criminal jurisprudence mandates that if two views are possible, the 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 one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the present case, not only is an one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the present case, not only is an 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 alternative view possible, but the defence version appears more probable when alternative view possible, but the defence version appears more probable when alternative view possible, but the defence version appears more probable when n touchstone of documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances. tested on touchstone of documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances. n touchstone of documentary evidence and surrounding circumstances.

19. The learned trial court has approached the matter with a preconceived The learned trial court has approached the matter with a preconceived The learned trial court has approached the matter with a preconceived The learned trial court has approached the matter with a preconceived notion, placing undue emphasis on recovery while ignoring vital defence evidence notion, placing undue emphasis on recovery while ignoring vital defence evidence notion, placing undue emphasis on recovery while ignoring vital defence evidence notion, placing undue emphasis on recovery while ignoring vital defence evidence ed judgment, therefore, suffers from serious legal and official records. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from serious legal ed judgment, therefore, suffers from serious legal and official records. The impugn infirmities and cannot be sustained. infirmities and cannot be sustained.

20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered 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 opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accepted by the appellant was illegal gratification and not amount of Rs.500/- accepted by the appellant was illegal gratification and not accepted by the appellant was illegal gratification and not amount of Rs.500 lawful remuneration. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. lawful remuneration. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. lawful remuneration. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

21. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the The judgment of appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 02.05.2005 and the order of sentence conviction dated 02.05.2005 and the order passed by of sentence dated 04.05.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ambala, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the the learned Special Judge, Ambala, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the the learned Special Judge, Ambala, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the 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 charges framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of charges framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of charges framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Corruption Act, 1988.

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

23. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. January 22, 2026 6 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.22 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document