Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1382 (PNJ)

Takhat Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-12-11

VIRENDER SINGH

body2002
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Takhat Singh son of Assa Singh stands convicted by the Special Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated May 31, 1989, for an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo RI for 3 months under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to further undergo RI for two months, U/S 161 IPC. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that Baljit Singh (PW-6) wanted extension of load on his electric motor from 3 Horse Power to 5 Horse Power. For this purpose, he had made an application (Exhibit P9) in the Grid Sub Division, Bhadson. The said application was pending with Takhat Singh appellant, who was posted as Revenue Accountant in the said Department. On 29.2.198, Baljit Singh complainant went to the said Sub Division and met the appellant. He requested the appellant to process his application and complete all the formalities including his signatures, but the appellant allegedly made a demand of Rs. 50/- as bribe. Since the complainant did not want to pay the bribe, he made a false pretext that he did not have the money that day and would meet the appellant on March 1, 1988. The complainant alongwith Amar Singh (PW-7) came to the Vigilance Bureau office Patiala on 1.3.1988 and met Inspector Satya Nand (PW-9) and made a statement (Exhibit-PE) before the said Inspector. He produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 20/- each and one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 10/- before the Inspector. The formality of putting the Phenolphathalein Powder. The formality of putting the Phenolphathalein Powder (PP powder) was also done and then they went to Bhadson. The complainant initially approached the appellant, who made a demand of Rs. 50/- Baljit Singh handed over the same to the appellant. Thereafter Amar Singh, who was made a shadow witness, gave the fixed signal to the raiding party headed by Inspector Satya Nand and consequently the appellant was apprehended in his office itself. The currency notes of Rs. The complainant initially approached the appellant, who made a demand of Rs. 50/- Baljit Singh handed over the same to the appellant. Thereafter Amar Singh, who was made a shadow witness, gave the fixed signal to the raiding party headed by Inspector Satya Nand and consequently the appellant was apprehended in his office itself. The currency notes of Rs. 50/- initialled by Inspector Satya Nand were allegedly recovered from the pocket of his pant. Thereafter the appellant was asked to dip his hand into the solution of Sodium Carbonate, which. turned slight pinkish. After completion of the other formalities, the case was registered against the appellant. 3. The appellant was charged for the offences indicated above. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. TPS Mann, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Inderjit Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. I have also perused the entire evidence recorded by the trial Court as also the other relevant documents minutely. 5. At the very out-set, Mr. Mann has pointed out that the basic ingredients of demand and acceptance are not proved in this case. Advancing his arguments, Mr. Mann has contended that Amar Singh (PW-7), who was made a shadow witness, did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile and nothing incriminating could be dug out of his cross-examination by the learned State Counsel, which could have helped the prosecution. According to Mr. Mann, since Amar Singh was declared hostile, the statement of Baljit Singh (PW-6), who was an accomplice in the case, remains uncorroborated so far as demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe money is concerned and thus the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe money on 1.3.1988 by the appellant. Thus, according to Mr. Mann, the uncorroborated statement of Baljit Singh (PW-6) cannot be formed basis for conviction of the appellant. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mann has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, 1996(1) Current Criminal Reports 218, wherein their Lordships have huld as under : "As a rule of prudence, some corroboration is necessary. In all this type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mann has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, 1996(1) Current Criminal Reports 218, wherein their Lordships have huld as under : "As a rule of prudence, some corroboration is necessary. In all this type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence." The last argument raised by Mr. Mann is that the evidence regarding recovery of the alleged money is not proved to the hilt. For that Mr. Mann has taken me through the statements of Gurdev Singh Gill (PW-8) and Inspector Satya Nand (PW-9) and has contended that the statements of both these witnesses on the point of recovery of the alleged bribe money are contradictory, collective effect of which would be that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery in the present case. 6 The last argument advanced by Mr. Mann is that the appellant has been roped in falsely because Baljit Singh complainant had been asking him not to take re-connection charges from him inspite of the fact that he was a defaulter in making payment of bills and also that the father of the complainant had made an application in the said office for disconnection of his electric connection as he had some dispute with his sons. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has strenuously argued that the case of the prosecution is proved against the appellant to the hilt and there is no reason to disbelieve the official witnesses. According to him, the recovery of money from the appellants pocket is proved because the solution of Sodium Carbonate had turned pinkish when the accused was made to dip his hand in it. According to the learned State Counsel as per Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, when the recovery is proved by the prosecution, it is for the accused to rebut that presumption. He then contended that there was no reason for the official witnesses to have deposed falsely against the appellant, who had no enmity with him. 8. According to the learned State Counsel as per Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, when the recovery is proved by the prosecution, it is for the accused to rebut that presumption. He then contended that there was no reason for the official witnesses to have deposed falsely against the appellant, who had no enmity with him. 8. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence read before me and the various submissions made by both the sides, I find substance in the contentions raised by Mr. Mann. In the present case Amar Singh (PW-7), the alleged shadow witness, who was instructed by Inspector Satya Nand to accompany Baljit Singh complainant alongwith the initialled three notes for the purpose of handing over the same to the appellant, has not supported the prosecution version. In this situation, the statement of Baljit Singh complainant would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt to the appellant. No doubt, in his statement it has come that when he reached the said office, the appellant was sitting there and on his reaching there, the appellant made a demand of Rs. 50/- the same was handed over to him and he (the appellant) accepted the same. In the absence of corroboration from Amar Singh (PW-7), the shadow witness, no legal weightage can be given to the statement of Baljit Singh. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the other official witnesses were standing at a considerable distance from Baljit Singh and Amar Singh and that they had to approach them only after getting a signal from Amar Singh, the shadow witness. The ratio of the decision in M.K. Harshans case (supra) is thus applicable to the facts of the present case in so far as the two basic ingredients viz. demand and acceptance at the relevant spot are concerned. So far as the third ingredient, viz. recovery is concerned, the statements of the two official witnesses, namely Gurdev Singh (PW-8) and Inspector Satya Nand (PW-9) are to be scanned minutely. demand and acceptance at the relevant spot are concerned. So far as the third ingredient, viz. recovery is concerned, the statements of the two official witnesses, namely Gurdev Singh (PW-8) and Inspector Satya Nand (PW-9) are to be scanned minutely. According to Inspector Satya Nand (PW-9) the fingers were dipped in the first instance and thereafter the recovery of tainted money from the pocket of the appellant was made, whereas according to Gurdev Singh Gill (PW-8), first of all the tainted currency notes were taken out and then simultaneously the solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared, in which the hand of the appellant was dipped. In view of this material discrepancy, Mr. Mann contends that the alleged recovery of money is a just farce and a crude padding as the appellant was taken from his office to the police station Bhadson, where the formalities were done in order to rope him in this case. In my considered view, this material discrepancy goes to the root of the case and falsifies the recovery part. The appellant is not supposed to come up with a very clear defence. It is for the prosecution to discharge its burden to the hilt. The defence plea taken by the appellant that Baljit Singh was annoyed with him as he wanted that the reconnection charges should not be taken from him despite the fact that he was a defaulter of the previous bills, for which the appellant could not be oblige him and that the appellant was harassing him for not transferring his fathers account into his name is appealing and it appears that the complainant had all the reasons to falsely implicate the appellant. 9. It may be true that the recovery in the present case rests upon the evidence of the aforesaid two official witnesses, but keeping in view the material discrepancy in their statements, the evidence on the point of recovery of bribe money is also to be doubted besides the evidence on demand and acceptance, which has already been disbelieved. 10. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. His bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.