Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1092 (PNJ)

Puran Chand v. State of Punjab

2003-08-08

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.1.1989 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Gurdaspur who has convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 161 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the Act). 2. In succinct, the case of the prosecution is that complainant Surjan Singh resident of village Khera Kotli approached the appellant for getting the copies of the khasra girdawari and jamabandi. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/- as consideration for the issuance of the said copy. The complainant did not want to pay the illegal gratification to the appellant. He apprised Kulwant Singh Sarpanch of village Khera Kotli about the illegal demand made by the appellant, who advised him to report the matter to the Vigilance Staff and not to pay the illegal gratification. 3. On 20.8.1987, Surjan Singh alongwith Kulwant Singh Sarpanch met Inspector Shiv Dutt of the Vigilance Bureau at Gurdaspur and made his statement Ex.PC regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant. On the basis of the said statement Ex.PC, FIR against the appellant Ex.PC/1 was recorded. PW-4 Surjan Singh complainant produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each before the Vigilance Inspector who put his signatures on the currency notes and applied phenolphthalein powder to them. After preparing memo Ex. PG, these currency notes were handed over the Surjan Singh-complainant. Inspector Shiv Dutt gave instructions to Surjan Singh that he should pass over the tainted money on the demand of the appellant. Kulwant Singh was directed to hear the conversation between the appellant and Surjan Singh and to give pre-arranged signal after the acceptance of the bribe money. Surjan Singh went to the office of the appellant and Kulwant Singh followed him. Inspector Shiv Dutt also joined Ranjodh Singh, Forest Guard in the raiding party. 4. Surjan Singh-complainant on reaching the office of the appellant passed on the tainted money to the appellant in the stairs of the chobara, after the copies were handed over to the complainant. Kulwant Singh gave a signal to the raiding party. Inspector Shiv Dutt also joined Ranjodh Singh, Forest Guard in the raiding party. 4. Surjan Singh-complainant on reaching the office of the appellant passed on the tainted money to the appellant in the stairs of the chobara, after the copies were handed over to the complainant. Kulwant Singh gave a signal to the raiding party. The raiding party came in the office of the appellant and Inspector Vigilance after disclosing his identity searched the person of Shiv Dutt and from the left front pocket of the shirt worn by the appellant notes Ex. P-6 and P-7 were recovered. The hand of the appellant were got washed in a solution of sodium carbonate. When the hands of the appellant were dipped in the water it turned pink. A memo to that effect was also prepared. Shiv Dutt Vigilance Inspector also took into possession copies of khasra girdawari and jamabandi Exs. P-1 and P-2 and the register of khasra girdawari and jamabandi. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the Judge, Special court, Gurdaspur. The appellant was charge-sheeted under section 161 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To prove its case, the persecution has examined Harbans Singh Clerk as PW- 1, ASI Baldev Singh as PW-2, Balwinder Singh retired Qanungo as PW-3, Surjan Singh as PW-4, Kulwant Singh as PW-5 and Inspector Shiv Dutt as PW-6. Ranjodh Singh was given up as having been won over by the accused. The prosecution also tendered into evidence report Ex.PN of the Forensic Science Laboratory and affidavits Exs. PO and PP of Constables Kundan Singh and Mohinder Singh respectively who are formal witnesses and closed the prosecution evidence. 6. When the appellant was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied simplicitor and pleaded as under :- "About 8 days prior to the raid Surjan Singh PW came to me. He wanted to get some copies of the revenue record and inquired from me their fee. In told him that the same would come about Rs. 100/-. He then asked me to prepare the copies of the revenue records required by him. He wanted to get some copies of the revenue record and inquired from me their fee. In told him that the same would come about Rs. 100/-. He then asked me to prepare the copies of the revenue records required by him. On 20.8.1997, he came to my office and I delivered him the copies required by him after making entries in the receipt book roznamcha wakayati and fee register and my son Jatinder Kumar who often helps me in my work because of very weak eye sight was also present and the copies were passed by him. The legal fee for the copies supplied came to Rs. 102.50 and Surjan Singh paid me Rs. 100/-. He promised to pay me the remaining amount after a few days on his visit to Gurdaspur. The above records were taken away of the Vigilance Staff on 20.8.1987 and falsely shown to have been produced on 24.8.1987. Kulwant Singh PW had a grudge against me for not paying "Kharaba" to his farm labourers. He had also made a complaint against me to SDM Gurdaspur and had also abused and threatened me on 18.8.1987 about which I had made a note in the rozanmcha wakayati. This was also brought to the notice of my officers at the time our weekly meeting held on every Monday but the raid was made before that." 7. The appellant was called upon to lead evidence in defence. He examined HC Sulakhan Singh as DW-1 and Beant Singh as DW-2. 8. After appraisal of the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para-1 above, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred. 9. Shri Ravinder Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Judge, Special Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and has convicted the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He submitted that the appellant was the victim of the circumstance. He submitted that the appellant has recommended the case of one person in the village for payment of compensation due to the damage of the wheat crop. This fact in proved from Ex.DA. He further submitted that the appellant rejected the cases of the farm labourers working with Kulwant Singh Sarpanch. He submitted that the appellant has recommended the case of one person in the village for payment of compensation due to the damage of the wheat crop. This fact in proved from Ex.DA. He further submitted that the appellant rejected the cases of the farm labourers working with Kulwant Singh Sarpanch. Kulwant Singh Sarpanch made complaint to the S.D.M., Gurdaspur prior to the registration of this case. This fact is proved from Ex. DB. He contended that Surjan Singh and Kulwant Singh have hatched conspiracy to falsely implicate the appellant. Both are interested witnesses. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on their statement. He submitted that if appellant has demanded Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification and Surjan Singh had agreed to pay then he must have fixed the time for making the payment. He pointed out that Surjan Singh came to the office of appellant eight days prior to the alleged trap. He asked the appellant to supply copies of jamabandi, khasra girdwari and other documents. He also inquired about the fee. The appellant told him that approximately Rs. 100/- would be the fee. He contended that on the day of occurrence, Surjan Singh came to the office and asked the appellant to prepare the copies of jamabandi and khasra girdwari. The appellant prepared the document and handed over to the complainant and demanded Rs. 102/-. The son of the appellant was also present there who has prepared the copy of the jamabandi, khasra girdawari and other documents. The receipt was also issued. He further pointed out that Beant Singh DW-2 was also supplied copy of the jamabandi. The receipt was also issued to him. He contended that on the day of the raid, the receipt book was also taken into possession by the investigator. The receipt is in the hand of the appellant. The appellant remained in the custody of Shiv Dutt, Investigating Officer. He further pointed out that when the appellant was in custody how he can sign the receipt in the back date ? The receipt book as per the investigator was taken into possession on 24th August, 1987. He further submitted that Ranjodh Singh, independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. He further pointed out that when the appellant was in custody how he can sign the receipt in the back date ? The receipt book as per the investigator was taken into possession on 24th August, 1987. He further submitted that Ranjodh Singh, independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR 330 and Ram Parkash Arora v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 498. 10. Shri H.S. Garewal, DAG, Punjab submitted that there is no contradiction in the statement of complainant Surjan Singh PW-4 and Kulwant Singh PW-5. He contended that it has amply been proved from the statements of the witnesses that the appellant has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification and has also supported the judgment of the trial court. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have pursued the record. 12. The appellant has taken a specific stand that eight days prior to the raid, Surjan Singh-complainant came to him. He wanted to get some copies of the revenue record and enquired from him the fee. He told him that the fee would be about Rs. 100/-. He then asked him to prepare the copies of the revenue record required by him on 20.8.1987 he came to his office and appellant delivered him the copies required by him after making entries in the receipt book, roznamcha wakayati and fee register. Surjan Singh has appeared as PW-4. He had denied that he had gone to the appellant 8 days prior to the raid nor he stated so to the vigilance inspector. When he was confronted with his statement Ex.PC in portion A to A-1, it has been so recorded. He has further denied that he has not stated before the Vigilance Inspector that he had gone to the appellant twice but when he was confronted with portion B to B-1 of statement Ex.PC, it was so recorded. 13. The version of Surjan Singh is not believable on other account also. Surjan Singh has not deposed in his statement that he had asked the appellant to prepare the copies of khasra girdawari, jamabandi and other documents and he would come on the next day i.e. 20.8.1987 at a specific time and would pay Rs. 13. The version of Surjan Singh is not believable on other account also. Surjan Singh has not deposed in his statement that he had asked the appellant to prepare the copies of khasra girdawari, jamabandi and other documents and he would come on the next day i.e. 20.8.1987 at a specific time and would pay Rs. 101/- as illegal gratification and would get the copies of abovesaid documents. 14. As per prosecution version, when Surjan Singh went to the office, in the stair case, the appellant supplied copies of jamabandi, khasra girdwari and Surjan Singh paid him the tainted money. If this would have been the position, how in such a short span of time, the appellant would have prepared all copies of documents and handed over to Surjan Singh. 15. The case of the appellant is that he has not recommended the case of any person including the labourer of Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch except one person PW-3 Balwinder Singh has deposed that Puran Singh has recommended the case of one person in village Khera Kotli for payment of compensation due t the damage of wheat crop and on that account Kulwant Singh was annoyed with him. The recommendation has been brought on records Ex.DA. This fact had been admitted by PW Surjan Singh and in his cross-examination he has admitted that Puran Chand has recommended the case of one person in village Khera Kotli. He has further deposed that Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch of village Khera Kotli had made complaint to SDM and DC Gurdaspur against the appellant for not re-commending the case of the farm labourers for compensation. Copy of the complaint has been brought on record as Ex. DB. Therefore, Kulwant Singh shadow witness is interested and inimical witness to the appellant. He has deposed that he alongwith Ajit Singh, Bakshish Singh, Jagir Singh, Gurmej Singh, his brothers, he himself and his father are joint owners of 20 kanals of land in village Khera Kotli and they are in self cultivation of the same. When the State paid compensation for damage to the crop, they came to know that the khasra girdawari entries of their land are in the name of Bakshish Singh son of Partap Singh resident of Boparai. When the State paid compensation for damage to the crop, they came to know that the khasra girdawari entries of their land are in the name of Bakshish Singh son of Partap Singh resident of Boparai. He approached the Revenue Patwari Puran Chand appellant for getting the copies of khasra girdwari and jamabandi in order to get the entries corrected but he has admitted that he was not made any application for correction of kharsa girdawari. If the complainant has obtained the copy of khasra girdwari and jamabandi for getting the khasra girdwari corrected then after the raid also after obtaining fresh copies he can approach the authority for correction of khasra girdawari. Kulwant Singh PW-5 has deposed that on 19.8.2987 Surjan Singh PW came to him and narrated that he had approached the Revenue Patwari for obtaining copy of the jamabandi and khasra girdawari and Puran Chand Patwari has demand Rs. 100/- as bribe. He advised him not to pay bribe and also told him that they will report the matter to the vigilance staff on the next date whereas Surjan Singh has deposed that Kulwant Singh had not advised him for getting the appellant trapped nor he had made a statement before the Vigilance Inspector that Kulwant Singh advised him that such persons should be got apprehended from vigilance staff confronting with portion C to C-1 of Ex.PC where it is so mentioned. Kulwant Singh and Surjan Singh PW-4 and PW-5 both are the interested witnesses. Ranjodh Singh was the independent witness. He had been given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the appellant. If Ranjodh Singh had been won over by the accused then it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce him and to cross-examine and elucidate the true version, therefore, the conviction without independent corroboration can not sustain. Similar view has been taken in Ram Parkash Arora (supra) and Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration, 1974(2) CLR 611. 16. The case of the prosecution also becomes doubtful on other score also. The raid was conducted on 20.8.1987. The appellant was arrested and was in the custody of Shiv Dutt Inspector. The case of the appellant is that he has issued receipts for the documents and the legal fees of these documents was Rs. 102/-. Complainant Surjan Singh paid him Rs. 100/- and agreed to pay Rs. The raid was conducted on 20.8.1987. The appellant was arrested and was in the custody of Shiv Dutt Inspector. The case of the appellant is that he has issued receipts for the documents and the legal fees of these documents was Rs. 102/-. Complainant Surjan Singh paid him Rs. 100/- and agreed to pay Rs. 2/- subsequently and receipt was issued on the same day. This receipt book as per the prosecution has been fabricated by the appellant on a subsequent date. The receipt book has been taken into possession on 24.8.1987. When this receipt book was taken into possession, the appellant was not present. This fact is also proved from the statement of Balwinder Singh PW-3 in whose presence the record including the receipt book was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD. When the appellant was in the custody of SI Shiv Dutt who is the investigator of the case then preparing of the receipt book subsequently in back date is not believable. The defence has examined Beant Singh son of Amar Singh as DW-2. He has deposed that he was present in the office of Puran Chand situated in Sabzi Mandi at the time of raid as he has gone to obtain copy of the jamabandi. Some other persons were also present there. Surjan Singh came there. He obtained some copies from the Patwari who told him that the fee of the copies was Rs. 102/- and some paisas but Surjan Singh paid Rs. 100/- and promised to pay the balance later on. Puran Chands son was also present there and had made some entries in the revenue record. The entry regarding the copy taken by him was also made. The appellant was apprehended by the Vigilance Staff. A perusal of the record shows that the receipt was issued for issuing the copy of the khasra girdawari. When the appellant was in custody on 20th to 24th he can not issue this receipt either in favour of complainant Surjan Singh or in favour of Beant Singh DW-2. This shows that the receipt book was taken into possession on 20.8.1987 but its recovery has been shown on 24.8.1987. 17. As per the statement of Surjan Singh complainant PW-5, there is another infirmity in the case of the prosecution. Surjan Singh has not deposed in his statement that he had agreed to pay Rs. This shows that the receipt book was taken into possession on 20.8.1987 but its recovery has been shown on 24.8.1987. 17. As per the statement of Surjan Singh complainant PW-5, there is another infirmity in the case of the prosecution. Surjan Singh has not deposed in his statement that he had agreed to pay Rs. 100/- as bribe in lieu of issuance of copy of Khasra Girdawari, jamabandi and other documents. He further made a statement that he has not deposed that he fixed the time with the Revenue Patwari that he will come on the next date. Even in his statement, Surjan Singh has deposed that appellant prepared the copies and handed over to him and demanded Rs. 100/- which were paid to the appellant. If the appellant had to accept the illegal gratification for issuance of copy of the jamabandi then he would have first accepted the illegal gratification and then handed over the same to Surjan Singh Complainant. 18. From the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence, it is established that the money recovered from the appellant was not the money of illegal gratification rather the money recovered was the legal fees which the appellant has accepted from Surjan Singh-Complainant for issuing him the copy of the jamabandi as well as khasra girdawari and other documents and for that a receipt has also been issued by the appellant. 19. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are dismissed. Appeal allowed.