E-Paper
Panchkula: Court acquits patwari in ₹1k bribe case
The case was registered by the Chandimandir police station in July 2019 under Section 170 of the IPC and sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act
The court of additional sessions judge Bikramjit Aroura has acquitted accused patwari Phool Singh from Parwala village, Panchkula, in a 2019 corruption case.
The case was registered by the Chandimandir police station in July 2019 under Section 170 of the IPC and sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. The complainant, Manish Kumar from Bataur, Barwala, accused Phool Singh for taking ₹1,000 bribe for making a mutation entry. The trial began in July 2021.
Proceedings against the co-accused, Naresh Kumar, 49, from Naraingarh, Ambala, were dropped as he had died during the pendency of the trial.
In its October 14 order, the court stated that the prosecution “has fallen short of establishing the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.” The judgment highlighted several deficiencies, including contradictions in the complainant’s evidence. Inadmissibility and unreliability of the electronic material. Absence of any corroborative evidence. Failure to prove demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court also cited absence of a formal trap or recovery.
The court held that the prosecution evidence “falls short of the standard necessary for conviction under the PC Act” and had “miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt” for offences under Section 7 of the PC Act, and Section 120-B and 170 of IPC.
Extending the benefit of doubt, the court formally acquitted Phool Singh of all charges framed against him.
As per the prosecution’s case, on July 6, 2019, Manish Kumar filed a complaint with the DC office, Panchkula. He stated that after purchasing a plot in Bataur village in his mother’s name in 2018, he met Phool Singh, who was posted as patwari at that time, to enter the mutation of the plot.
Manish alleged that Phool Singh demanded ₹1,000 for making the mutation entry and did not give a satisfactory answer when asked about the official government fee. Becoming suspicious, Manish went outside, switched on his mobile phone camera, and returned. Upon the patwari’s asking, Manish gave ₹800 to Phool Singh for the mutation entry and recorded the incident.
Phool Singh allegedly kept the money in his pocket and advised the complainant to return on September 20, 2018, to get a copy of the mutation entry. When Manish visited the office on the appointed day and again on September 24, Phool Singh was absent. He met co-accused Naresh Kumar, who was sitting in Phool Singh’s seat. Naresh gave him a copy of the mutation, affixed Phool Singh’s stamp, and signed it.
Naresh then demanded the remaining ₹200, which Manish paid and recorded. Manish later confronted Naresh about the total ₹1,000 taken. Naresh allegedly disclosed that the money was distributed as ₹100 to the Kanungo, ₹500 to the Tehsildar, and ₹150 to Phool Singh and himself. The complainant had also come to know that the government fee for mutation was ₹250.
