Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1246 (PNJ)

Major K. Gurdev Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab

2003-09-04

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This appeal has been instituted by Major K. Gurdev Singh Dhillon against judgment and order dated 31.7.1992 passed by Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he was found guilty and convicted under Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to RI for one year and a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to RI for six months. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 3.3.1990, an advertisement appeared in the newspapers regarding recruitment of Constables in Punjab Police at Ferozepur. Mehar Chand, complainant, was eligible for the recruitment, so, he talked to his brother, Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh was having fast friendship with one Jarnail Singh @ Jaila Singh, resident of Village Dhannowal. Balbir Singh talked to him about the recruitment of his brother as Constable at Ferozepur. Jarnail Singh told him that his relation, K. Gurdev Singh Dhillon i.e. the appellant was posted as Assistant Welfare Officer, Sainik Rest House, Ferozepur, and he could get the work done through him. Consequently, Mehar Chand, Balbir Singh and Jarnail Singh went to Ferozepur and approached the appellant and talked to him about the recruitment of Mehar Chand as Constable in the Punjab Police. The appellant told them that their work could be done if an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as the same was required to be given to the officers concerned with the recruitment. However, Mehar Chand and Balbir Singh told him that they were poor persons and could not afford Rs. 30,000/-. Ultimately, the deal was struck at Rs. 18,000/-. 3. The appellant sent for the forms and the same were filled by Mehar Chand and then Mehar Chand etc. returned to their village. 4. On 22.3.1990, Mehar Chand alongwith Balbir Singh and Jarnail Singh went to Ferozepur and met the appellant in the Sainik Rest House and handed over the amount of Rs. 18,000/- to him. The appellant asked them that their work would be done. 5. On 24.3.1990, Mehar Chand, complainant, visited Ferozepur and on enquiry, he was informed that the recruitment of Harijans as Constables would be done in the Police Line, Ferozepur on 25.3.1990. On 25.3.1990, he went to Police Line, Ferozepur, but was rejected on account of short height. 18,000/- to him. The appellant asked them that their work would be done. 5. On 24.3.1990, Mehar Chand, complainant, visited Ferozepur and on enquiry, he was informed that the recruitment of Harijans as Constables would be done in the Police Line, Ferozepur on 25.3.1990. On 25.3.1990, he went to Police Line, Ferozepur, but was rejected on account of short height. Mehar Chand approached the appellant for return of the amount but he refused to pay the same. Upon it, he alongwith Pritam Singh approached the Superintendent of Police and made complaint in writing, upon which case was registered. The appellant was formally arrested and after completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the Court. 6. Having made out a prima-facie case, the appellant was charged under Sections 8/9 of the Act by Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence on 15.7.1992, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. He next stated that Pritam Singh was under his control and he (appellant) was officiating in place of his senior officer who was on two months leave. Pritam Singh was not working satisfactorily and he had called him in his office and told to keep control on his Clerks and to get the office work done correctly but he was in the habit of visiting his house frequently, to which he objected. He further stated that Pritam Singh had demanded his official Jeep to take furniture to his house to which he refused and on that account his relations became strained with him. He further stated that he was on leave from 22.3.1990 to 26.3.1990 and Pritam Singh had got him falsely implicated. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 9. After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the Special Judge, Ferozepur, found him guilty and convicted under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act vide judgment dated 31.7.1992 and sentenced as stated in the earlier part of the judgment vide order of even date. 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused-appellant has filed the present appeal. 11. I have heard Shri Swaran Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused-appellant has filed the present appeal. 11. I have heard Shri Swaran Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.S. Parmar, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, Shri G.S. Gill, Sr. DAG Punjab, for the respondent and carefully gone through the record. 12. PW-1 Mehar Chand stated that an advertisement had appeared in the news papers regarding recruitment of Constables in Punjab Police at Ferozepur. He next stated that he talked to his brother Balbir Singh and expressed desire to get himself appointed as Constable. His brother approached Jarnail Singh, who told them that his wifes sisters husband i.e. the appellant was in a position to help them in getting the complainant, Mehar Chand, appointed as Constable in the Police force. The appellant promised to get the needful done against payment of Rs. 30,000/-, which amount was to be passed to the officers connected with the recruitment of Constables. He next stated that they expressed their inability to pay the huge amount and ultimately, the deal was struck at Rs. 18,000/-. He further stated that on 22.3.1990, they again contacted the appellant after arranging Rs. 18,000/- and paid the said amount to him, who sent for the forms and he filled the same in his own hand and obtained his signatures on it. He further stated that he and his brother Balbir Singh contacted him on 24.3.1990 for recruitment but he was not available at the place where recruitment was being done and came to know that recruitment was to be done regarding Harijans on 25.3.1990. He next stated that he appeared before the concerned authority on 25.3.1990 for recruitment but was rejected on account of short in height and then they went to Jalandhar and contacted the appellant at his house, who brought them back in his office on 26.3.1990 at Sainik Board and sent him alongwith Pritam Singh to the Police Line but he was again rejected on account of short height. He further stated that he had told Pritam Singh that he had made payment to the appellant and then he took him to the SSP and moved an application, Ex.PA, which was signed by him. His statement is corroborated by his brother, PW-2 Balbir Singh. 13. PW-3 Pritam Singh, Superintendent, Sainik Welfare Office, stated that in March 1990, he was posted at Ferozepur. His statement is corroborated by his brother, PW-2 Balbir Singh. 13. PW-3 Pritam Singh, Superintendent, Sainik Welfare Office, stated that in March 1990, he was posted at Ferozepur. He next stated that on 26.3.1990, Mehar Chand, present in Court, came to their office concerning recruitment as Constable. He further stated that he was one of the Members of the Recruitment Board. He next stated that the appellant had told him that Mehar Chand was his own person and he should help him in getting him enrolled. He further stated that he took Mehar Chand to Police Line and requested the SSP that height of Mehar Chand be re-measured but on re-measurement, his height was found short and SSP refused to enroll him. He next stated that upon it, Mehar Chand started weeping and while weeping he told him that the appellant had taken Rs. 18,000/- from him for the purpose of getting him enrolled. He next stated that then they approached the SSP, Ferozepur, and statement of Mehar Chand was recorded. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the appellant had refused the facility of Jeep to him, so, he was not happy with him. 14. Ex.PB is the form, which was filled by Mehar Chand for the post of Constable in Punjab Police. This form was taken into possession by the police from the office of Recruitment Board. 15. Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was on leave from 22.3.1990 to 26.3.1990. The office record had not been produced to prove that he was on leave for the said period. Of course, it is in evidence of the complainant that on 24.3.1990, the appellant was not present in the office and was on leave and they had contacted him at his residence at Jalandhar, after he was rejected on 25.3.1990 due to short height, who brought them back to his office at Ferozepur and sent him alongwith Pritam Singh, PW-3, who was Member of the Recruitment Board but again he was rejected due to short height on 26.3.1990. Therefore, it hardly matters that the appellant was on leave. 16. Counsel for the appellant next contended that no offence under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act is made out. Therefore, it hardly matters that the appellant was on leave. 16. Counsel for the appellant next contended that no offence under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act is made out. Offence under Section 8 is made out when gratification is accepted or obtained or is attempted to be accepted or obtained as a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means a public servant to do or omit to do something in the discharge of his official duties. The difference between Section 8 and Section 9 is that under Section 8, the public servant is to be induced by corrupt or illegal means whereas under Section 9, he is to be induced by exercise of personal influence. In the present case, the appellant had accepted Rs. 18,000/- from Mehar Chand, complainant, on behalf of the Members of the Recruitment Board as gratification to be paid to them for getting Mehar Chand enrolled as a Constable or to influence them in his selection. It is proved on file from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 that Rs. 18,000/- were paid to the appellant. Even PW-3 Pritam Singh, Superintendent of the office of the Sainik Welfare Board, stated that Mehar Chand admitted in his presence that he had paid Rs. 18,000/- to the appellant. It does not appeal to reason that PW-3 Pritam Singh had a grudge against the appellant as the appellant has restrained him from using the official jeep for his personal work. There is no evidence that Pritam Singh remained absent from duty and the appellant had warned him in writing and on that score, he was nursing ill-will against him. It is proved by cogent evidence that the appellant had accepted Rs. 18,000/- as gratification to pay the same to the recruiting officers or to influence them by any other means, so, that Mehar Chand could be got selected as Constable in the Punjab Police at Ferozepur. 17. Counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the appellant is an old person and he is facing criminal proceedings for the last more than 13 years and as such a lenient view be taken. Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, his sentence is reduced to the period of six months from one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, his sentence is reduced to the period of six months from one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for two months. 18. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.