Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1257 (PNJ)

Sat Pal (Died) through LRs. v. State of Punjab

2003-09-08

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This appeal was instituted by Sat Pal against the judgment and order dated 15.12.1990 passed by Special Judge Hoshiarpur, vide which he found him guilty and convicted him under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant (now deceased) was post as Revenue Patwari in Halqa Jandor, Tehsil Dasua. PW2 Rajinder Singh approached him on 12.7.1989 to have copy of the Jamabandi as he wanted to file a suit regarding the land sold by his mother to the Co-operative Society. However, Sat Pal appellant demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe for supplying the said copy of the Jamabandi and he asked Rajinder Singh PW to come to him on 14.7.1989 to get the copy. 3. Since, PW2 Rajinder Singh did not want to pay the bribe, so on 14.7.1989 he accompanied by PW3 Jarnail Singh approached the Vigilance Inspector at Hoshiarpur and made statement Ex.PE which was reduced into writing by the Vigilance Inspector and he signed the same after admitting it to be correct. PW2 Rajinder Singh also gave Rs. 200/- in the form of currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the Vigilance Inspector Darshan Singh who applied phenolphthalein powder on them, after entering their serial number in the memo Ex.PF and thereafter returned the same to PW Rajinder Singh complainant. The Vigilance Inspector also gave demonstration of the working of said powder vide memo Ex.PG. Shambu Nath was also joined in the party. P.W. Rajinder Singh was directed to hand over Rs. 200/- to Sat Pal (now deceased) after he demanded the same and PW3 Jarnail Singh was told to signal the police party after the deal was struck. Consequently, PW2 Rajinder Singh along with Jarnail Singh PW went to Sat Pal appellant in his office. PW Rajinder Singh demanded copy of the Jamabandi from him who demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe money. Upon it, PW Rajinder handed over the currency notes of Rs. 200/- to Sat Pal appellant who supplied copies of Jamabandi Ex.PB and PC to him and accepted the currency notes of Rs. PW Rajinder Singh demanded copy of the Jamabandi from him who demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe money. Upon it, PW Rajinder handed over the currency notes of Rs. 200/- to Sat Pal appellant who supplied copies of Jamabandi Ex.PB and PC to him and accepted the currency notes of Rs. 200/- and put the same in the right packet of his pant. Upon receipt of the arranged signal from PW Jarnail Singh, Vigilance Inspector Darshan Singh along with other police officials reached the office of Sat Pal appellant and secured him from his arms and took his search. The currency notes of Rs. 200/- Ex.P1 and P2 were recovered. The numbers of these currency notes tallied with the numbers written in the memo Ex.PF and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH attested by the witnesses. 4. PW7 Vigilance Inspector Darshan Singh prepared solution of sodium carbonate and water in a glass tumbler wherein the hands of Sat Pal appellant were got washed and the solution became pinkish in colour. The solution was transferred into nip Ex.P3 and was sealed with the seal of Vigilance Inspector DS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ. Pant of Sat Pal appellant was also got removed and pocket portion of the pant was got washed in the freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate and water and the said solution also turned pinkish in colour. It was also transferred into nip Ex.P4 and was sealed with the seal of DS. The nip Ex.P4 along with pant Ex.P5 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK attested by the witnesses. PW2 Rajinder Singh handed over copies of the Jamabandis which he had obtained from Sat Pal appellant and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. On personal search of Sat Pal appellant, Rs. 144/-, one wrist watch and two pens were recovered and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM. 5. PW7 Inspector Darshan Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the present challan was put up in the Court. 6. Having made out a prima facie case, the appellant was charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. 6. Having made out a prima facie case, the appellant was charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Shambu Nath PW was given up as having been won over. After tendering into evidence the report of Forensic Science Expert Ex.PS, the prosecution evidence was closed. 8. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code wherein he admitted that at the relevant time he was posted as Revenue Patwari in Halqa Jandor but denied the other allegations of the prosecution and stated that he was innocent. He next stated that father of Jarnail Singh PW had sold land to various persons and he had entered mutations in the name is vendees but PWs Jarnail Singh and Rajinder Singh wanted him to get those mutations declared as disputed as Jarnail Singh had challenged those sales in the Court but he refused to oblige them and they felt aggrieved. He further stated that PW Rajinder Singh had obtained copy of the Jamabandi from him on 12.7.1989 and he entered the same in his Register of fees and on 14.7.1989 he was called by the Vigilance Inspector and was falsely implicated at the instance of Rajinder Singh and Jarnail Singh PWs. In defence, he examined DW1 Amrik Singh Patwari. 9. After hearing learned P.P. for the State and the learned defence counsel, the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his judgment dated 15.12.1990 found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him vide order of even date as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 10. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has filed the present appeal. 11. I have heard Mr. K.S. Dadwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. R.K. Nihal Singh Wala, learned DAG Punjab and carefully gone through the file. 12. It was admitted by PW2 Rajinder Singh that PW3 Jarnail Singh was his uncle as he is from his brotherhood. Thus, PW2 Rajinder Singh is related to PW3 Jarnail Singh. It is further admitted by PW2 Rajinder Singh that one employee of Punjab State Electricity Board namely Shambu Nath was joined at Dasua. 12. It was admitted by PW2 Rajinder Singh that PW3 Jarnail Singh was his uncle as he is from his brotherhood. Thus, PW2 Rajinder Singh is related to PW3 Jarnail Singh. It is further admitted by PW2 Rajinder Singh that one employee of Punjab State Electricity Board namely Shambu Nath was joined at Dasua. Said Shambu Nath has not been examined as he was given up as won over. The only inference is that had he been examined, he would not supported the prosecution case. Since, PW3 Jarnail Singh is related to PW2 Rajinder Singh, so, he cannot be said to be an independent witness by any stretch of imagination. PW3 Jarnail Singh was detailed as shadow witness i.e. he was asked to hear the talk which transpired between PW2 Rajinder Singh and Sat Pal appellant and after the money was handed over to Sat Pal then he was to inform the police by giving the arranged signal. PW3 Jarnail Singh simply stated that Rajinder Singh PW handed over Rs. 200/- to Sat Pal appellant as bribe money and then Sat Pal handed over copies of Jamabandies Ex.PB and PC to him. He did not stated that Rs. 200/- were handed over by Rajinder Singh PW to Sat Pal appellant on his demand as bribe money. Of course PW2 Rajinder Singh has stated that he had handed over Rs. 200/- when the same were demanded by Sat Pal. However, his sole testimony cannot be believed on this point because it was not corroborated by any independent witness. Moreover, PW3 Jarnail Singh cannot be stated to be an independent witness by any stretch of imagination because he was related to PW2 Rajinder Singh. 13. It was admitted by PW3 Jarnail Singh that his father had sold land and he had filed civil suits against his father challenging those sales. He further stated that vendees had got those soles mutated in their favour. 13. It was admitted by PW3 Jarnail Singh that his father had sold land and he had filed civil suits against his father challenging those sales. He further stated that vendees had got those soles mutated in their favour. The defence of Sat Pal appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that father of PW3 Jarnail Singh had sold land through various sale deeds and the latter had challenged the same and Jarnail Singh and Rajinder Singh PWs wanted that he should not get the mutation of those sale deeds sanctioned but should get the same declared as disputed, but since he did not help them, so, they became inimical to him and he was falsely implicated. Otherwise also, the fee Register shows that copies of the Jamabandis were delivered to PW2 Rajinder Singh on 12.7.1989. If the copies had been delivered to Rajinder Singh PW on 12.7.1989 then there is no question of accepting Rs. 200/- as bribe money on 14.7.1989. So, there is no satisfactory evidence that PW2 Rajinder Singh had handed over the bribe money of Rs. 200/- on demand by Sat Pal appellant. Thus, the essential ingredient of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is missing. The evidence of PW2 Rajinder Singh remained uncorroborated and it is not safe to base conviction of the appellant on his uncorroborated statement especially when it is proved from documentary evidence that copies of the Jamabandis were supplied on 12.7.1989. 14. In view of the discussion above, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Appeal allowed.