Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1306 (PNJ)

Chander Bhan v. The State Of Punjab

2002-11-27

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Chander Bhan (since dead) challenging his conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861. 2. As per the prosecution version, Babu Singh who is a resident of village Malla was to take loan from the bank for the installation of tube-well and for that purpose he required a copy of the jamabandi. Accused Chander Bhan was posted as Patwari. Babu Singh went to the appellant and requested for the supply of copy of jamabandi and as per the prosecution, the appellant demanded Rs. 300/- as bribe from the complainant. The complainant Babu Singh claimed that he was a poor man and could afford to pay only Rs. 150/-. On next date, i.e. April 23, 1998 Babu Singh complainant tried to make complete efforts to get the copy of jamabandi but the appellant Chander Bhan insisted upon the payment demanded by him. Upon this, Babu Singh approached the Vigilance Inspector, Faridkot and narrated the whole incident. Babu Singh produced one currency note of Rs. 100/- and one currency note of Rs. 50/- before the Vigilance Inspector and asked him to take action. As per the detailed version given by the prosecution, a police party was constituted whereby it was agreed that Babu Singh would go and make payment of Rs. 150/- to the appellant and Balwinder Singh was to act as a shadow witness and was to hear the talk of Babu Singh and Chander Bhan. After the currency notes had passed hands, Balwinder Singh was required to give a signal. Accordingly, the raiding party reached village Wara Bhai Ke and Babu Singh went ahead and paid Rs. 150/- as bribe to the appellant. A signal was given by Balwinder Singh and the currency notes were recovered from Chander Bhan appellant. A solution of the Sodium Carbonate power was prepared and the hands of the appellant were got washed with the same. The colour of the solution turned pink. The numbers of the same were compared with the numbers of the notes given to Babu Singh complainant and the same tallied. A solution of the Sodium Carbonate power was prepared and the hands of the appellant were got washed with the same. The colour of the solution turned pink. The numbers of the same were compared with the numbers of the notes given to Babu Singh complainant and the same tallied. After investigation, the challan was presented and the appellant Chander Bhan was ultimately convicted for the commission of the offence as aforesaid and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. 3. The present appeal has been filed by Chander Bhan appellant assailing the order of aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Faridkot. As noticed by me above, the aforesaid appellant Chander Bhan has since died. His son Prem Kumar has been brought on record to pursue the present appeal under the provisions of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. I have heard Shri H.S. Gill, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record. 5. It is submitted by Shri H.S. Gill, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that as per the prosecution Chander Bhan had demanded illegal gratification for the supply of the copy of the jamabandi. The copy of the jamabandi on record shows that it had already been prepared on April 22, 1988 and delivered. In these circumstances, Shri Gill maintains that there was no occasion for the appellant Chander Bhan to demand the illegal gratification after the delivery of the copy. I am not impressed with the submission made by Shri Gill inasmuch as the case of the prosecution itself is that Babu Singh complainant had met Chander Bhan appellant at the bus stand and again requested him for the supply of the copy. Upon this, Chander Bhan appellant had replied that the copy was already ready and in his possession but would be delivered to him only on the payment of money. In this view of the matter, since the copy had been prepared and delivered on April 22, 1988, therefore, it could not give any benefit to the appellant being in contravention of the prosecution version. In this view of the matter, since the copy had been prepared and delivered on April 22, 1988, therefore, it could not give any benefit to the appellant being in contravention of the prosecution version. Faced with this situation Shri Gill has made further submission that the sanction in the present case was also defective inasmuch as it was not accorded by the competent authority i.e. the appointing authority of the appellant Chander Bhan. On this question, Shri Gill has referred to the cross-examination of PW-2 Shavinder Kumar who is a Bill Clerk produced by the prosecution. The aforesaid witness has merely stated that in the service book of the appellant it was not mentioned as to who was his appointing authority. On that basis, Shri Gill has submitted that since there was confusion with regard to the appointing authority of the appellant, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 6(2), the sanction could have been granted only by the State Government. Even this submission made by Shri Gill does not impress me. It is clear from the statement of PW-1 that the appellant had joined service as Patwari candidate on May 3, 1949. Ex-PA is the correct copy of the original entry. The appellant was confirmed as Patwari on March 1, 1956. The confirmation order was passed on March 27, 1961. In the meantime, his services were terminated on January 1, 1958 but he was re-employed on August 16, 1959. Ex-PA shows that the appellant had joined as Patwari candidate under the orders of the Collector and not under the orders of the Commissioner. Ex.PB is the service book of the appellant. It was also prepared in the office of Deputy Commissioner. It all shows that the appointing authority and sanctioning authority as far as the petitioner is concerned was the Deputy Commissioner. Nothing has been shown that the sanction granted by the aforesaid Deputy Commissioner/Collector was in any manner erroneous or deficient. 6. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.