Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 952 (PNJ)

Mangal Lal v. State Of Punjab

2001-08-30

K.S.GAREWAL

body2001
Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of two connected appeals which have been filed by Mangal Lal, District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bathinda and Balwant Singh, Assistant in the office of the District Manager, challenging their conviction by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Punjab, Patiala vide judgment dated October 24, 1997 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The main charge against the appellants was that Mangal Lal had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from Amrit Pal Goel on April 7, 1995 and asked the bribe giver to hand over this amount to his Assistant Balwant Singh. The bribe money was later recovered from Balwant Singhs possession when the office was raided by DSP Vigilance. 2. Amrit Pal Goel (PW.11) was a partner of M/s. Mauli Ram Cotton Ginning Processing and General Mills, Budhlada. This Mill was supplied paddy for shelling for Government Agencies and after shelling the rice was packed in bags and supplied to the F.C.I. For the purpose, the Corporation allotted space for storage. On April 7, 1995, Amrit Pal Goel met Mangal Lal in his office at Bathinda and asked him to allot space for storing the bags of rice. Mangal Lal demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for allotment of the space and asked Amrit Pal Goel to file an application for the purpose which is Ex.PW.7/1. Amrit Pal Goel had no money with him at that time, so he promised to pay the bribe after arranging for the money and was directed by Mangal Lal to return by noon. Amrit Pal Goel to the Bathinda bus stand where met Rattan Lal (PW-2) and apprised him of the situation. Rattan Lal advised Amrit Pal Goel not to give the bribe and instead approach the Vigilance Officer. Amrit Pal Goel arranged Rs. 10,000/- from a customer and, alongwith Rattan Lal went to the office of the Vigilance Bureau, where he met DSP Kuldip Singh. His statement Ex.PW.1/1 was recorded. Amrit Pal Goel produced 20 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- before DSP Kuldip Singh, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and their numbers were also noted on memo Ex.PW.1/2 which was attested by Amrit Pal Goel and Rattan Lal. His statement Ex.PW.1/1 was recorded. Amrit Pal Goel produced 20 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- before DSP Kuldip Singh, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and their numbers were also noted on memo Ex.PW.1/2 which was attested by Amrit Pal Goel and Rattan Lal. A trap was thus laid according to which Amrit Pal Goel was to hand over the money to Mangal Lal and Rattan Lal was to act as a shadow witness and give a signal to the raiding party after the money had passed. Thereafter endorsement Ex.PW.1/4 was made and the statement was sent for registration of the case to Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. Manjit Singh Brar, P.C.S. District Transport Officer, Bathinda also joined the party. The raiding party went to the office of the appellants Amrit Pal Goel and Rattan Lal went inside while the remaining members of the party stood at some distance to wait for the signal. On seeing Amrit Pal Goel, Mangal Lal asked him if he had brought the bribe money whereupon Amrit Pal Goel replied in the affirmative. He was then told by Mangal Lal that his work was ready and would be done. Balwant Singh was called through a peon and Amrit Pal Goel was directed by Mangal Lal to hand over the bribe money to Balwant Singh which he did as directed. Balwant Singh counted the money and put it in the right pocket of his trousers. The above transaction was witnessed by Rattan Lal who then sent the pre-planned signal. DSP Kuldip Singh raided the office and was told by Amrit Pal Goel that the bribe money had been given to Balwant Singh at the instance of Mangal Lal. A solution of sodium carbonate in water was prepared. Both hands of Balwant Singh were got washed in the solution and the colour turned pink. The solution was sealed in nip Ex.P.1 which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW.1/5 attested by Amrit Pal Goel, Rattan Lal and Manjit Singh Brar, D.T.O. Personal search of Balwant Singh was conducted and 20 notes of he denomination of Rs. 500/- were recovered from the right pocket of his trousers. The numbers of the notes were compared with the numbers written on the memo and they tallied with each other. The recovered notes Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.22 were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW16. 500/- were recovered from the right pocket of his trousers. The numbers of the notes were compared with the numbers written on the memo and they tallied with each other. The recovered notes Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.22 were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW16. The right pocket of trousers of Balwant Singh was washed in sodium carbonate solution and colour turned pink. The solution was put in a nip Ex.P22 and the trousers Ex.P.23 were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW.1/8. The above is the complete sequence. 3. On completion of the investigation, the appellants were tried. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, principal being DSP Kuldip Singh (P.W.1), Rattan Lal (P.W.2), Manjit Singh Brar (P.W.3) and Amrit Pal Goel (P.W.11). The accused/appellants were called upon to give their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they offered detailed explanations. Mangal Lal denied the incident though he admitted that he had received the application for the allotment of space to M/s. Mauli Ram Cotton Ginning Processing and General Mills, Budhlada. The application was processed by his office and the file was handed over to the concerned clerk before the raid. DSP Kuldip Singh accompanied by Amrit Pal Goel came to his office at noon and asked him as to why he was not doing the work. He replied that the work had already been done. Thereafter the DSP and Amrit Pal Goel threatened him. Balwant Singh also reached there. The F.C.I. Staff held a demonstration against the DSP whereupon both he and Balwant Singh were forcibly taken to the Vigilance Bureau. Balwant Singhs version was that he worked in the storage branch dealing with labour, carnage, transportation and court cases etc. On April 7, 1995 he had prepared the agenda for Mangal Lal to be taken to Chandigarh for the meeting of District Managers and given it to Mangal Lal at 8.00 a.m. He came to the office at noon and while he was having tea with his colleagues, the District Managers peon came and informed him that Mangal Lal had called him. When he went to Mangal Lals office, he saw two men there. They were quarrelling with Mangal Lal and he intervened to ask them as to what the matter was. Those two men tried to put something in his pocket at the instance of Mangal Lal and in the meantime he got confused as to what happened. When he went to Mangal Lals office, he saw two men there. They were quarrelling with Mangal Lal and he intervened to ask them as to what the matter was. Those two men tried to put something in his pocket at the instance of Mangal Lal and in the meantime he got confused as to what happened. The accused/appellants did not lead any defence evidence apart from relying on certain documents. 4. The trial Court framed eight points for determination and came to the conclusion that demand of bribe had been made by Mangal Lal though acceptance of the bribe by Balwant Singh was at the instance of Mangal Lal. Balwant Singh did receive the money. There was nexus between the two of them. It was also held that there was a valid reason or motive for the appellants to accept illegal gratification which had been demanded by Mangal Lal and was accepted by Balwant Singh on the direction of Mangal Lal. Furthermore, the money was recovered from the possession of Balwant Singh. The various discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case were discussed but were found to be not of much importance. Lastly, it was held that the defence pleas were not trustworthy as the incident proved itself. The sanction was found to be valid and the appellants were convicted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellants were not concerned with the space for storage, therefore, there could be no conspiracy between them to demand the bribe. DSO Vigilance had no jurisdiction to conduct raid, no independent witness was joined, and the evidence had not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. 6. The starting of the point of the investigation and indeed of the whole of the prosecution case was the statement of Amrit Pal Goel (PW.11). The circumstances of the raid and the sequence of events have been unfolded above. Therefore, the salient features of the cross-examination need to be looked into in order to determine whether this witness was a reliable witness whose statement could be made the basis of conviction. In cross-examination Amrit Pal Goel admitted that before April 7, 1995, he had not written any application though he had orally asked Mangal Lal to allot space as he had been allotting space to other mills but Mangal Lal had been dilly-dallying. Nevertheless, no complaint was filed against Mangal Lal. In cross-examination Amrit Pal Goel admitted that before April 7, 1995, he had not written any application though he had orally asked Mangal Lal to allot space as he had been allotting space to other mills but Mangal Lal had been dilly-dallying. Nevertheless, no complaint was filed against Mangal Lal. The witness admitted that in 1996 Markfed had supplied paddy to his mill for shelling but a criminal case was registered against his mill as they did not supply the equivalent quantity of rice. Markfed had imposed a recovery of lacs (of rupees) against their mills leading himself and two other partners obtaining anticipatory bail but later they were discharged by the Court. The matter of recovery of rice was referred to the Arbitrator but the proceedings had been stayed. He could not tell the exact amount which was claimed by Markfed. Suggestion had been put to him though denied that he had embezzled the rice belonging to F.C.I. and in order to cover up the embezzlement a false case had been foisted against the accused. The cross-examination further revealed that after meting Mangal Lal at about 11.00 a.m. Amrit Pal Goel met Rattan Lal at 11.45 a.m. Thereafter the money was arranged for at 12.00 noon whereupon he and Rattan Lal went to the office of the Vigilance Bureau at 12.15 p.m. As regards the person from whom the money was arranged, the witness stated that it had been taken from the proprietor of a firm to whom he used to sell rice bran, the shop was in the old Satta Market, Bathinda. Witness could not fell the name of the proprietor or name of the firm and also could not say if any entry had been made in the bahi of the proprietor. As his mill had to recover the amount from the said firm on account of a business transaction, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted. The khata of that firm was not shown to the investigator. As his mill had to recover the amount from the said firm on account of a business transaction, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted. The khata of that firm was not shown to the investigator. He further stated that they started for raid at 1.00 p.m. He and Rattan Lal entered the office of Mangal Lal at 1.15 p.m. and the proceedings were completed by 4.00 p.m. Lastly, the witness admitted that on July 28, 1996, F.I.R. under Sections 420/506 I.P.C. had been registered at Police Station Budhladha against him by 28 persons to whom his firm had owned money and to whom cheques had been issued which were dishonoured. The witness had been arrested in that case and remained in custody though later he was bailed out and discharged in the case. The file of the firm of the complaint is Ex.PW.1/10. This is an important piece of evidence which shows that relationship between the complainant mill and the F.C.I. On one of the sheets of this file is a noting dated April 7, 1995 to the effect that :- "In the first instance we may allow the miller two stocks for FCI milling at Budhladha locally as the FCI paddy is lying only in this millers premises. As regards delivery at Budhlada we may first get the economics examined from the Committee Officers and on the basis of recommendations of Committee Officers further action for discussion may be taken." This appears to be the note put up to the Manager who accepted it "as proposed" on April 7, 1995. It is this that the prosecution had alleged to be the motive or the reason for the complainant giving the bribe to the accused/appellants. 7 The statement of DSP Kuldip Singh (P.W.1) has been reproduced in brief above when the facts were narrated. In cross-examination he admitted that Amrit Pal Goel and Rattan Lal had come to his office and when he came down he noticed that both Amrit Pal Goel and Rattan Lal had travelled in their Ambassador car. He and the other vigilance officials got into the official Gypsy. On the way they joined Manjit Singh Brar, D.T.O. who had his official Ambassador car. 8. He and the other vigilance officials got into the official Gypsy. On the way they joined Manjit Singh Brar, D.T.O. who had his official Ambassador car. 8. Manjit Singh Brar, when examined as P.W.3, has fully corroborated the circumstances in which the raid was conducted and the money recovered after it had been handed over by Amrit Pal Goel to the accused in the presence of Rattan Lal (PW.2). In cross-examination the witness had admitted that DSP Vigilance had come to him at 1.00 p.m. and the raid was conducted at 1.30 during lunch break. Similarly Rattan Lal was examined as PW.2 and he too corroborated the evidence of the raid. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants challenged the evidence of prosecution witnesses and pointed out certain discrepancies with regard to the mode of travel to the office of the Food Corporation of India. According to Amrit Pal Goel (P.W.11), he and Rattan Lal had travelled in a car which followed the Gypsy in which DSP Kuldip Singh and Manjit Singh Brar D.T.O. had travelled. However, Rattan Lal (P.W.2) stated to the effect that he alongwith DSP Kuldip Singh and Amrit Pal Goel had travelled in the Gypsy while Manjit Singh Brar travelled in his own car. Similarly, DSP Kuldip Singh testified that Amrit Pal Goel, Rattan Lal and other vigilance officials travelled with him in the Government Gypsy while Manjit Singh Brar, travelled in his official vehicle. Manjit Singh Brar deposed that he alongwith DSP Kuldip Singh, Rattan Lal and Amrit Pal Goel travelled in a white Ambassador car while the Gypsy followed them. The various modes adopted for travelling by the witnesses as deposed by them appear to be somewhat contradictory but it must be remembered that the actual passing of the bribe had not taken place in the vehicle but in the office of Mangal Lal accused. After the witnesses had reached the office building the raiding party had broken up as planned. Amrit Pal Goel and Rattan Lal had entered the office with the money. Thereafter a signal was given which led the raid to be put into operation. Therefore, the mode of travel was really of peripheral interest and does not at all touch upon the actual sequence in which the raid was carried out. Amrit Pal Goel and Rattan Lal had entered the office with the money. Thereafter a signal was given which led the raid to be put into operation. Therefore, the mode of travel was really of peripheral interest and does not at all touch upon the actual sequence in which the raid was carried out. It has also been submitted that according to Rattan Lal (PW.2) S.P. Vigilance reached the spot after 10 minutes and stayed there during investigation. Manjit Singh Brar also stated that S.K. Mittal (S.P. Vigilance) had come but had not signed any documents whereas DSP Kuldip Singh stated that S.P. Vigilance had not come to the spot. It may be mentioned that S.P. Vigilance was not examined as a witness. Therefore, it matters little whether he had come to the spot or not and accordingly any discrepancy in this regard would be of little significance. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that Amrit Pal Goel, the bribe giver, was not at all clear about how he had arranged the money which he had handed over as bribe. This witness had stated in cross-examination that money had been taken from the proprietor of a firm to whom he sold bran but he could not tell the name of that proprietor, and no entry had been made in the Bahi of the proprietor. The mill of the witness had to recover the amount from the firm and this amount of Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted in the khata of the firm maintained in their account books but this was not shown to the C.B.I. On the basis of the above, it was argued that the whole story was false as the source of money used as bribe remained unclear and unidentified. Therefore, the foundation of the case was shaky. This argument, though attractive, cannot be accepted because the numbers of the currency notes had been taken down by the Investigator before they were handed over to the accused and when the notes were recovered from the possession of Balwant Singh the numbers had exactly tallied. There was ample evidence to establish that Rs. 10,000/- had been passed as bribe by Amrit Pal Goel to Mangal Lal. Therefore, doubts regarding the source of money even if raised would not be of much significance. 10. There was ample evidence to establish that Rs. 10,000/- had been passed as bribe by Amrit Pal Goel to Mangal Lal. Therefore, doubts regarding the source of money even if raised would not be of much significance. 10. This was quite clearly a case where the Vigilance Department has succeeded in laying a trap in order to ensure Mangal Lal though not Balwant Singh. Amrit Pal Goel (PW.11) was the chosen decoy, while Rattan Lal (PW.2) was to be the shadow witness. Manjit Singh Brar (PW.3) alongwith DSP Kuldip Singh had waited outside the office for the appointed signal. They reached Mangal Lals office and recovered the tainted money from the possession of Balwant Singh. Prosecution had succeeded in establishing each and every aspect of the raid. Prosecution evidence leaves no manner of doubt that bribe had been asked by Mangal Lal and the cash was, on Mangal Lals direction, handed over to Balwant Singh. Prosecution evidence also showed that Balwant Singh had been called by Mangal Lal after he was convicted that Amrit Pal Goel had brought the promised amount of money. 11. The character and antecedents of Amrit Pal Goel as highlighted by the counsel for the appellants would not make much difference in the present case because the part played by him stands fully corroborated by the evidence of two independent official witnesses, DSP Kuldip Singh and Manjit Singh Brar. Therefore, Amrit Pal Goel having been involved in criminal cases or having allegedly embezzled rice belong to F.C.I., obtaining anticipatory bail etc. cannot cast any doubt on his testimony. Furthermore, the fact that he does not remember from where he arranged the cash which was later paid as bribe will not make much difference because the other official witnesses of the raiding party, including the Investigator, confirmed that the currency notes which had been paid as bribe and recovered from Balwant Singh were the same that had been earlier shown to the Investigator by Amrit Pal Goel and whose numbers had been noted. 11A. The sequence of events clearly and categorically establishes that the bribe had been demanded by Mangal Lal and had been handed over on his instructions to Balwant Singh from whose possession the money was recovered. Mangal Lal had demanded the bribe for allotting space for storage of bags of rice. 11A. The sequence of events clearly and categorically establishes that the bribe had been demanded by Mangal Lal and had been handed over on his instructions to Balwant Singh from whose possession the money was recovered. Mangal Lal had demanded the bribe for allotting space for storage of bags of rice. This allotment was to be made by Mangal Lal and not by Balwant Singh. Right upto the stage when the money was handed over by Amrit Pal Goel to Balwant Singh, there was no allegation against Balwant Singh that he had demanded any bribe. No talk had taken place in the presence of Balwant Singh regarding the consideration for the allotment. Balwant Singh was called by Mangal Lal after the latter was convinced that Amrit Pal Goel had brought the money. Mangal Lal very cleverly did not handle the cash himself but it was on his instructions that the cash was handed over to Balwant Singh who counted it and put in his pocket. It would be seen from this fact that Balwant Singh was not at all privy to the payment of the bribe by Amrit Pal Goel. Balwant Singh only received the money on the instructions of Mangal Lal without any knowledge about the purpose for which the money was being given to him by Amrit Pal Goel. Therefore, even though Balwant Singh did accept the money and was found to be in his possession, he cannot be said to have accepted illegal gratification because he had no knowledge whatsoever of the transaction. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence in the case linking Balwant Singh with the transaction even though Balwant Singh worked in Mangal Lals office. It is Mangal Lal, and Mangal Lal alone, who had demanded the money and who had accepted the bribe although the money was paid to Balwant Singh. It can be clearly seen that the bribe was paid to Mangal Lal as per his demand but it was only handed over to Balwant Singh from whom Mangal Lal would have taken the money after the bribe giver had left the scene, but this was not to be as events took a different turn. 12. It can be clearly seen that the bribe was paid to Mangal Lal as per his demand but it was only handed over to Balwant Singh from whom Mangal Lal would have taken the money after the bribe giver had left the scene, but this was not to be as events took a different turn. 12. The defence versions of Mangal Lal and Balwant Singh are a bit inconsistent with each other, whereas Mangal Lals version is that DSP Kuldip Singh and Amrit Pal Goel had come to his office and threatened him for not doing the latters work, Balwant Singhs version was that when he went to Mangal Lals office on being called and he found two men there who were quarrelling with Mangal Lal and tried to put something in his pocket. Balwant Singh does not go to the extent of saying that he had been handed over the cash amount. For this aspect of the case the prosecution version, as discussion above, can be accepted. Balwant Singhs counter story is to a great extent consistent with the prosecution case but at the crucial point he seems to have become confused. Even if Balwant Singhs version is entirely ignored his complicity in the whole affair, and particularly in the acceptance of the bribe, is not present because he had only accepted the money at the instance of Mangal Lal and he was not at all concerned with the illegal transaction. So far as Balwant Singh is concerned the money may have been for some legitimate purpose and no bribe for some favour done by Mangal Lal to Amrit Pal Goel. 13. Prosecution had successfully established the charges against Mangal Lal although the case against Balwant Singh of having acted in conspiracy with Mangal Lal was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court had quite clearly erred in holding Balwant Singh guilty. 14. Resultantly, the appeal filed by Mangal Lal is dismissed. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. Balwant Singhs appeal is accepted and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Appeal dismissed.