2026:HHC:12540 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 323 of 2015 Reserved on: 03.03.2026 Date of Decision: 21.4.2026. State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Girdhari Lal ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant/State: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Ms Sheetal Vyas, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.12.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, Una, H.P (Learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charges framed against him. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:12540 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7, read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It was asserted that the informant Sushil Kumar (PW11) was holding a General Power of Attorney of his mother Ramakanta for partitioning Khewat Nos. 57 and 58. The partition application was allowed. The informant talked to the accused Girdhari Lal, Reader to Tehsildar, who revealed that the memorandum of partition was to be prepared. The accused asked the informant to deposit the stamp duty of ₹ 30,000/- @ 1½ % per square meter. The informant expressed his inability to pay the amount, after which the accused told the informant to pay ₹1200/- to him. The informant told the accused that he was not carrying that much money, and he would arrange for the money. The informant consulted Lekh Raj (PW14), who advised him (the informant) to approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The informant filed an application (Ext.PW11/A) before the Anti- Corruption Bureau. An FIR (Ext.PW16/A) was registered. Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) investigated the matter. He wrote a letter (Ext.PW16/B) to AETC Una, for the deputation of an officer 3 2026:HHC:12540 and Jodh Singh (PW1) was deputed. He visited the Police Station on 26.05.2012 at about 12:20 PM. The informant disclosed the facts of the case to Jodh Singh (PW1). Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) demonstrated the use of phenolphthalein and sodium bicarbonate and prepared the Memo (Ext.PW1/A). The informant produced two currency notes of ₹ 500/- and two currency notes of ₹100/- before the Investigating Officer Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16), who recorded the serial number of those currency notes and treated them with phenolphthalein powder. He put them in the left pocket of the informant’s shirt and directed the informant not to shake hands with anybody, and to give the currency notes to the accused on his demand. He prepared a Memo (Ext.PW1/B). Lekh Raj was directed to remain in eye contact with the raiding party and signal them by moving his hand on his head after the receipt of the bribe money by the accused. The informant and shadow witness were sent to the Tehsil Office, Una. The raiding party also reached the Tehsil Office, Una at 1:30 PM. It was discovered that the office was closed for lunch, and the accused had also closed his room. The raiding party waited for the signal from the shadow witness. Shadow witness signalled the raiding party, and Constable 4 2026:HHC:12540 Ashwani Kumar, HHC Subhash Chand (PW12), went inside the room of the accused. HHC Subhash Chand (PW12) caught the right wrist of the accused, whereas Constable Ashwani Kumar caught the left wrist of the accused. The raiding party also reached the spot and introduced themselves to the accused. Naib Tehsildar Gurdial Singh (PW2) was called to the spot. One jug of clear water was procured. The glass and one plate were cleaned with water. Some water was put into the glass, and some powder of sodium bicarbonate was added to it. The water remained colourless. The hands of the accused were washed in the plate, and the colour of the solution turned pink. The hand wash solution was kept in a nip, and the nip was sealed with seal ‘X’. The sample seal (Ext.PW1/C) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. One paper slip (Ext.P1) was affixed on the nip. The nip was seized vide seizure memo (Ext.PW1/D). The police searched the accused, but could not recover the bribe money from him. The police prepared the memo (Ext.PW1/E). The police searched the room of the accused, but could not find any bribe money. The electricity supply was disrupted at 4:30 PM, and the room became dark. Hence, the police party had to move to another room after sealing the room of the accused. The accused 5 2026:HHC:12540 revealed at 6:30 PM that he had concealed the bribe money in the room under the files. The room was opened in the presence of Gurdial Singh (PW2) and Jodh Singh (PW1). The police checked the rack and the files and recovered one currency note of ₹500/-and two currency notes of ₹100/- each. The serial numbers of the recovered currency notes were found to be the same as recorded in the seizure Memo (Ext.PW1/B). The recovered currency notes were put in an envelope (Ext.P2), and the envelope was sealed with seal ‘X’. The envelope was seized vide Memo (Ext. PW1/F). The accused produced two files titled Ramakanta versus Balbir Kumar etc. (Ext.P7 and Ext.P8), which were seized by the Police vide Memo (Ext.PW1/G). Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW16/C) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. The case property was handed over to Lady MHC Sushma Rani (PW9), who deposited it in Malkhana and made an entry in the register of Malkhana. The sample was sent to RFSL Dharamshala, and a report (Ext.P8) was issued stating that the contents of the Nip had phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in them. Yogesh Kumar (PW3) produced the currency note of ₹ 500. He also produced 6 2026:HHC:12540 one paper slip (Ext.PW3/D) and Register (Ext.P9) bearing relevant entries (Ext.PW3/A), which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW3/C). The admitted handwriting of the accused (Ext.PW4/B and Ext.PW4/C) was procured. The statement of Yogesh Kumar (PW3) was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Una. The specimen handwriting of the accused (Ext.PW8/A to Ext.PW8/H and Ext. PW8/G to Ext.PW8/L) was obtained on 16.06.2012. Inspector Sher Singh seized the appointment and posting orders of the accused (Ext.PW6/A to Ext.PW6/D) vide memo (Ext.PW6/E). Sushil Kumar produced the photocopy of the General Power of Attorney of Ramakanta (Ext.PW11/B), which was seized vide memo (Ext. PW11/A). The admitted, questioned, and specimen handwriting of the accused were sent to RFSL Dharamshala. Mam Raj Sharma (PW8) examined the handwriting and found that these were written by one person. He issued the report (Ext.PW8/A). An application was filed for obtaining the prosecution sanction before the Deputy Commissioner, Una. Rampal (PW13) produced the entire record before the Deputy Commissioner Una, who accorded the sanction (Ext.PW13/A) to prosecute the accused, which was dispatched to SP Vigilance 7 2026:HHC:12540 through a forwarding letter (Ext.PW13/B). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove its case. Jodh Singh (PW1), HHC Subhash Chand (PW12) and Inspector Sher Singh (PW15) were the members of the raiding party. Gurdial Singh (PW2) was posted as Naib Tehsildar and was called after the accused was apprehended by the police. Yogesh Kumar (PW3) was working as a Stamp Vendor, and he produced a currency note of ₹500/- and other documents. Varinder Sharma, Tehsildar Nadaun (PW4), was dealing with the case titled Rama Kanta vs. Balbir Kumar. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW5) is the witness to the recovery of the currency notes from Yogesh Kumar (PW3). Sanjeev Kumar (PW6) is the witness to the 8 2026:HHC:12540 recovery of the appointment and posting order. Jugal Kishore (PW7) produced the photocopy of the notification regarding the payment of stamp duty. Mam Raj Sharma (PW8) analysed the handwriting. Lady MHC Sushma Devi (PW9) was working as an MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HHC Surinder Pal (PW10) carried the case property to RFSL, Dharmshala. Sushil Kumar (PW11) is the informant. Ram Pal (PW13) proved the prosecution sanction. Lekh Raj (PW14) was the shadow witness. Dy. SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) investigated the matter. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted that he was posted as an Ahlmad in the office of the Tehsildar Office at Una and was assigned the duties of Reader. He admitted that the two cases title Ramakanta versus Balbir, were pending for the partition of the land. He denied the rest of the prosecution’s case. He stated that nothing was recovered from him. He admitted that the electricity supply was disrupted, but claimed that the room was not locked or sealed. He was taken to the Police Station Vigilance at Jhalera at that time by the Police. A false case was made against him and the witnesses deposed against him at the instance of Lekh Raj (PW14), who used to pose himself as an Advocate before 9 2026:HHC:12540 Tehsildar Una and was exposed by him (the accused). Lekh Raj, the informant, met him 2 weeks before the incident and asked about the amount of stamp duty required for preparing the instrument of partition. He demanded the particulars of the person in whose name the stamp papers were to be purchased. He prepared the paper slip and handed it over to the informant. He did not produce any evidence in defence. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution’s version was inherently improbable. There were various contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the circumstances surrounding the recovery. The necessary ingredients of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 13 (2), read with Section 7 of the PC Act, were not satisfied. The informant and Lekh Raj had earlier filed complaints against the accused and the Tehsildar, which showed that they had a grudge against them. The payment of ₹500/- to Yogesh Kumar (PW3) falsifies the prosecution’s case that the demand of ₹1200/- was made. Varinder Sharma (PW4) admitted that the stamp duty of ₹1192.62/- was payable for preparing the instrument of partition, and the demand of ₹1200/- cannot be 10 2026:HHC:12540 connected to illegal gratification. Therefore, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence. The statements of prosecution witnesses were discarded for an untenable reason. The prosecution witnesses corroborated each other's statements in material particulars. The report of RFSL, Dharmshala, proved that the disputed and admitted signatures were written by the accused, and the contents of the nip contained phenolphthalein and sodium bicarbonate. These reports corroborated the prosecution’s version. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by earned Trial Court be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and Ms Sheetal Vyas learned Counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial 11 2026:HHC:12540 Court erred in rejecting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses without assigning any cogent reason. The statements corroborated each other on material particulars. The mere fact that the informant had filed the complaint against the accused does not show that a false case was made. Learned Trial Court had taken a view that could not have been taken by any reasonable person. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the statements of prosecution witnesses materially contradicted each other. The prosecution’s case was inherently suspect, and it cannot be a coincidence that the stamp duty payable was ₹1192.65/- and a demand of ₹1200/- was made. This shows that the demand was not for illegal gratification and was towards the payment of the stamp duty. The learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court should not interfere with a reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding an 12 2026:HHC:12540 appeal against acquittal, even if another view is possible. She prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed on page 440: “12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 13 2026:HHC:12540 13. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed: “12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible based on the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The police have presented the present challan for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ingredients of Section 7 were explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar 14 2026:HHC:12540 Bansal v. State of Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 at page 498: 11. Thus, in an offence under Section 7 of the 1988 Act, the points requiring proof are: (i) that the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to be, a public servant; (ii) that he accepted or retained or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain from some person a gratification; (iii) that such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him; (iv) that he accepted such gratification as a motive or reward, proof of which is essential for (a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or (b) showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in the exercise of his official functions, or (c) rendering or attempting to render any service, or disservice to someone, with the legislative or executive government, or with any public servant. 16. It is undisputed that the whole of the amount was not recovered from the accused and ₹500/- were recovered from Yogesh Kumar (PW3) on 27.05.2012, the next day of the incident. Sushil Kumar (PW11) stated that he went to the accused, and the accused enquired about ₹1200/-. The informant said that he had brought the money, and the accused told him to put the money in the drawer of the table. He put the money in the drawer. The accused took him to Stamp Vendor (Yogesh Kumar) and handed 15 2026:HHC:12540 over a paper slip to the Stamp Vendor. The accused asked the informant to sign the slip. The accused returned to his seat. The accused asked the informant to sit for a while and went out of the office. He corrected to say that the accused told him to visit on Monday. When he looked towards the drawer, the money was not there. Lekh Raj was standing in the gallery, and he signalled him. 17. The statement of this witness shows that the money was not paid to Yogesh Kumar (PW3) when the paper slip was handed over to him. He tried to claim that the accused had gone out of the office after the informant and the accused had returned from the Stamp Vendor. However, he corrected to say that the accused had asked him to visit on Monday. 18. Lekh Raj (PW14) stated that the Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) directed him and the informant to give the signal to the raiding party after the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. The accused came to the office at 2:45 PM, and Sushil went inside the room. Sushil and the accused came out of the room time and again, and after some time, Sushil signalled him that the accused had taken the bribe money, and he 16 2026:HHC:12540 signalled the raiding party. He stated in his cross-examination that the informant and accused had gone to the seat of the Stamp Vendor and were walking here and there. They did so 2-3 times. 19. His testimony shows that the accused was with the informant even when he came out of the room and went to the Stamp Vendor. He has not explained when the money was paid by the accused to the Stamp Vendor. This becomes important because he had specifically stated that he and the informant remained with the Stamp Vendor when the Tehsil Office was closed for lunch. Thus, the prosecution has failed to explain the circumstances in which the money was paid to the stamp vendor. 20. Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) admitted in his cross- examination that he had filed the applications (Ext. DA to Ext. DC) for obtaining the police remand of the accused. It was specifically mentioned in the application Ext. DA that the police party reached the Tehsil office at 1:30 PM. The police party remained outside, informant Sushil Kumar and shadow witness Lekh Raj went to the room of the Reader to Naib Tehsildar. 17 2026:HHC:12540 Ashwani Kumar and Subhash Chand also entered the room, and thereafter, the police party also entered the room. These applications were written on 27.05.2012 and 28.05.2012 and show that the money was paid by the informant to the accused immediately after arrival at the spot. This is contrary to the prosecution’s version that the Tehsil Office was closed for lunch, the police party waited, and the accused came at 2:45. It does not mention that the light was switched off and the police party went to another room. If the initial version of the prosecution is accepted as correct, the prosecution has failed to explain the reason for the recovery of the currency notes from Yogesh Kumar (PW3). As per this application, the informant and the accused had no occasion to go to the Stamp Vendor or the accused to pay money to the Stamp Vendor. 21. Dy. SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) specifically stated that he had directed the informant to signal the shadow witness, and the shadow witness was directed to transmit the signal to the raiding party. The informant has not provided any reason as to why the informant had not signalled the shadow witness about the payment of the bribe money. He stated in his cross- examination that he had not immediately signalled anybody 18 2026:HHC:12540 after putting the money in the drawer. He volunteered to say that he had not done so because the accused had not yet touched the currency notes. He stated that the drawer remained open during the period, and he remained with the accused, or he went outside and came back. Two other officials of the Tehsil were present in the room, and he talked to them about the case of Game Shah Estate. 22. The recovery of the money from the accused is also suspicious. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that no money was recovered after the accused was apprehended. The police searched for the money in the file, etc., but could not find it. The electricity supply was disrupted at about 4:30 PM, and the room became dark. The police party went to another room after sealing the room of the accused. The money was recovered at 6:30 when the accused revealed that the money was hidden under the files. This version is highly improbable because of the initial version recorded in the applications for the police remand. Further, the police had already searched the room, but could not find the money, and there is no justification for the recovery of the money at 6:30 pm. 19 2026:HHC:12540 23. Jodh Singh (PW1) stated that the accused told Naib Tehsildar that he had taken ₹1200/-, but the money was for the stamp papers. The vigilance inspector asked the accused to produce the bribe money, but the accused replied that he did not know where the money was kept. Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) personally searched the accused and recovered a mobile phone, a bunch of keys, and a diary containing ₹165/-. He stated in his cross-examination that Dy.SP Narinder Kumar (PW16) had already recovered the money, and he was called subsequently. This shows that the money was not recovered in his presence. 24. Varinder Sharma (PW4) was dealing with a partition case. He admitted in his cross-examination that the stamp duty to be levied on the instrument of partition was @ 0.5% over ₹23,85,350/-, which amounts to ₹1192.62/-. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the demand of ₹1200/- when the amount due was ₹1192.62/- cannot be a mere coincidence, and this aspect would make the prosecution’s case highly suspect. 25. The payment of money to the Stamp Vendor shows that the informant is not disclosing the correct facts before the Court. If the accused had demanded the bribe money for himself, 20 2026:HHC:12540 he was not supposed to pay the money to the Stamp Vendor. The payment of money to the Stamp Vendor makes the prosecution suspect that the money was meant as a bribe. 26. The informant, Sushil Kumar, admitted in his cross- examination that he was a Power of Attorney of Ramakanta in a case titled Ramakanta versus Suresh Kumar. He volunteered to say that Suresh Kumar is the brother of Balbir. He admitted that he had no Power of Attorney in the case titled Ramakanta versus Balbir Chand, and his power of attorney was valid for only one case. This admission falsifies the case put up by the informant that he was a Power of Attorney of his mother, Ramakanta, in a case titled Ramakanta versus Balbir Chand, and adversely affects the informant’s credibility. 27. A detail of currency notes was noticed in the memo (Ext.PW1/B). The memo contains the details of the case, including the Sl. No. in pen and handwriting of some person, whereas the rest of the document is computer printed. Lekh Raj (PW14) stated that the proformas (Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW1/B) were filled when he appended his signature. The printout of these documents was taken from the computer in his presence. 21 2026:HHC:12540 The statement made by this witness that the printout of the form was taken from the computer does not provide any explanation for the handwriting in the form. If the documents were prepared on a computer, the details could have been mentioned in the proformas themselves, when the rest of it was being written. The fact that the details were written by hand makes it suspicious that the document was prepared on the spot. 28. The informant admitted in his cross-examination that his wife had scribed the Will regarding the estate of Baba Game Shah. He admitted that this Will was presented by Lekh Raj vide application Mark D1. Lekh Raj (PW14) admitted in his cross-examination that he had made a complaint to the Financial Commissioner against Tehsildar Varinder Sharma (Ext.DA) and his statement (Ext.DA/1) was recorded in that complaint. The accused has proved the complaint (Ext.DB) filed by Sushil Kumar regarding the estate of Baba Game Shah, mentioning that the Revenue Officials were not dealing with the case in a proper manner. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that there was a dispute between the informant Lekh Raj and the Revenue Agency, and the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. 22 2026:HHC:12540 29. In the present case, the prosecution relied upon the statements of inimical witnesses, and the learned Trial Court was justified in doubting the prosecution’s case. This was a reasonable view that could have been taken by the learned Trial Court, and this Court will not interfere with a reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. 30. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. 31. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the respondent/ accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23 2026:HHC:12540 32. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. 33. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st April, 2026 (Nikita)