Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1550 (PNJ)

Kashmiri Lal v. State of Punjab

2003-11-12

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.5.1990 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Faridkot, vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Under Section Sentence 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 2 years and to pay line of Rs. 500/-., In default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months. 161 Indian Penal Code One year. 2. Appellant Kashmiri Lal was posted as Accounts Clerk in the Office of Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Malout. On 22.7.1988, he demanded Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification from Ved Parkash who retired as Compounder from Veterinary Hospital, Chack Sher Wala. On the request of the complainant Ved Parkash, complainant agreed to pay Rs. 200/- for sending the draft. Ved Parkash made a false promise to make the payment of Rs. 200/- but he did not want to make the payment. He made a complaint to Vigilance Inspector, Muktsar. On the complaint of Ved Parkash, FIR was registered. Ved Parkash also produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/-. Numbers of the currency notes were also noted. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to those notes. Raid was conducted. In the raiding party Rattan Singh Bedi and Atma Singh JE PWs were also joined. A demonstration was given in the vigilance office how the phenolphthalein power worked. The Vigilance Inspector prepared scheme that Ved Parkash complainant will go ahead and Rattan Singh will follow him. When the payment is made by the complainant on the demand of appellant, Rattan Singh will give a signal to the police party. As per the scheme, Ved Parkash handed over the currency notes to Kashmiri Lal on his demand, Rattan Singh gave a signal to the police party. On receiving the signal, Mohan Singh Vigilance Inspector went inside the office. He disclosed his identity to the appellant. Appellant was apprehended. Solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and hands of the appellant were got washed. The colour of the water got changed to pink. Solution was put into a nip which was duly sealed. From the personal search of the appellant, two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were recovered from the front side pocket of the appellant. Appellant was apprehended. Solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and hands of the appellant were got washed. The colour of the water got changed to pink. Solution was put into a nip which was duly sealed. From the personal search of the appellant, two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were recovered from the front side pocket of the appellant. The numbers of the notes were also compared and the same tallied with the numbers mentioned in the memo prepared in the office. After that another solution of the water was prepared. The pocket of the shirt of the accused was got washed in that solution. The colour of the water changed to pink. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Judge, Special Court, Faridkot. 3. From the perusal of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, a prima facie case under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and 161 Indian Penal Code was made out against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Ved Parkash Complainant as PW-1 and Rattan Singh Shadow witness as PW-2. Both of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Sajjan Singh was examined as PW-3. He is the formal witness. He has proved the sanction Ex.PJ granted by the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayats, who is the competent authority to appoint and remove the accused. Teja Singh Clerk as PW-4. He has proved the posting order of the appellant Ex.PK. Atma Singh JE as PW-5. He is also a trap witness, he is not supported the case of the prosecution. Jagir Singh, Superintendent Panchayat Samiti as PW-6. He has also proved the posting of the accused at Malout Ex.PM. He has proved the posting order dated 30.5.1988. Dial Singh Accountant as PW-7. He has deposed that appellants used to prepare the bills. Application of Ved Parkash complainant was received in their office and was entrusted to the Accountant on 20.6.1988 for preparing the GPF bill. The bill was prepared by the appellant. Mohan Singh Inspector as PW-8. He is the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution has also tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.PL, PR and PS, report of F.S.L. Ex. PT. Application of Ved Parkash complainant was received in their office and was entrusted to the Accountant on 20.6.1988 for preparing the GPF bill. The bill was prepared by the appellant. Mohan Singh Inspector as PW-8. He is the investigating officer of the case. The prosecution has also tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.PL, PR and PS, report of F.S.L. Ex. PT. The prosecution has given up SI Des Raj as unnecessary whereas Jeevan Kumar was given up as having been won over by the appellant. 5. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution, he denied simplicitor and pleaded his false implication and pleaded as under : "I am innocent. The draft was taken from the table of the Despatch Clerk. I have been falsely implicated due to party faction in between the employees of the office of the B.D.O. Malout. The money was forcibly put in my pocket." 6. The appellant was called upon to lead evidence in defence. He has examined Hari Ram as DW-1 who has deposed that it takes about 50 minutes for a bus to reach from Muktsar to Malout. Every bus has to make stop at bus stop and about 15 minutes are taken there. 7. After pursuing the evidence and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Judge, Special Court, Faridkot has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph-1 of the judgement, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Shri V.K. Chaudhri, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right respective. He submitted that the appellant was posted as Accountant in the office of Block Development & Panchayat Office, Malout. His duty was to prepare the bill. As per the evidence given by Dayal Singh (PW-7), the application of Ved Parkash was received in their officer for preparing the GPF Bill. The same was entrusted to the appellant on 20.6.1988. The bill was prepared by the appellant and was handed over to Dayal Singh. Dayal Singh put the bill on 13.7.1988 before the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. After preparaing the bill and its approval, the R.T.R. of Rs. 3085-60 was prepared on 15.7.1988 in the name of Zila Parishad. The same was entrusted to the appellant on 20.6.1988. The bill was prepared by the appellant and was handed over to Dayal Singh. Dayal Singh put the bill on 13.7.1988 before the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. After preparaing the bill and its approval, the R.T.R. of Rs. 3085-60 was prepared on 15.7.1988 in the name of Zila Parishad. He submitted that Dayal Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that the draft was with the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and he has stated that he will hand over the same personally in the office of Zila Parishad. He submitted that the appellant has already prepared the bill. The appellant can only demand the illegal gratification for preparing the bill. He contended that the RTR was prepared on the basis of bill. The draft was not with the appellant and it was with the B.D.P.O. The draft was either to be handed over to the B.D.P.O. in the office of the Zila Parishad or it was for the Despatch Clerk be despatch the draft. He contended with vehemence that when the draft was not to be despatched by the appellant then there is no question of demanding illegal gratification. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and found the same without any merit. 10. From the evidence on record, it has been proved that the draft was with the appellant. He has not despatched the same for reasons best known to him. Dayal Singh PW-7 has deposed in his cross-examination that he had gone to Chandigarh on 18.7.1988 and he has directed either to the accused or to the Despatcher to sent the draft with a covering letter through registered post to the concerned person. He has also admitted that draft of one Chawla was not sent by post and the same was handed over to him by the B.D.P.O. The draft of Ved Parkash was also not sent through registered cover. 11. Ved Parkash PW-1 has deposed in his statement that when the raid was conducted, the draft was lying on the table which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. It was attested by him and other PWs. 11. Ved Parkash PW-1 has deposed in his statement that when the raid was conducted, the draft was lying on the table which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. It was attested by him and other PWs. Ved Parkash PW-1 and Rattan Singh PW-2 have deposed in their statement that when raid was conducted, the draft Ex.PN was lying on the table; attested by them and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. Ved Parkash and Rattan Singh PWs have no motive to falsely depose against the appellant. Ved Parkash has deposed in the statement that appellant has demanded illegal gratification for sending the draft of his GPF and agreed to accept Rs. 200/- and on his demand, he paid the same and put into his pocket. He has further deposed that the amount was taken by him for showing the draft of provident fund to him. Then the appellant took out the draft from the drawer alongwith the letter. The police party reached there. The inspector told the accused that he is Vigilance Inspector. He took out the currency notes worth Rs. 200/- from his pocket. Thereafter the notes were handed over to Atma Singh J.E. and the same was compared with the memo in which the numbers were recorded. The inspector read over the numbers from the memo and Atma Singh compared the same with this memo. The numbers were tallied. He has also deposed that the draft and the letter were laid on the table which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. To the same effect, is the statement of Rattan Singh PW-2 and Inspector Mohan Singh PW.8. 12. Atma Singh J.E. (PW-5) has not supported the case of the prosecution in toto. When he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he has admitted in his cross-examination that numer of the notes were compared with the numbers in the memo and the same were tallied. He has also admitted that one draft and the letter were taken into prosecution from the table and be had signed the memo Ex.PD and PH. 13. From the evidence of the prosecution, it has abundantly been proved that the draft was recovered by Mohan Singh, Vigilance Inspector from the table. He has also admitted that one draft and the letter were taken into prosecution from the table and be had signed the memo Ex.PD and PH. 13. From the evidence of the prosecution, it has abundantly been proved that the draft was recovered by Mohan Singh, Vigilance Inspector from the table. Before that this draft was taken by the appellant from the drawer of the table and shown to the Ved Parkash complainant PW-1 and for sending the same accepted Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no occasion to demand the illegal gratification from Ved Parkash-Complainant is not sustainable. 14. There is no evidence on the record to show that the complainant or the shadow witness namely Rattan Singh PW-2 or Mohan Singh Vigilance Inspector PW-8 have enmity to depose against the appellant rather from the evidence on record, it has been established that the appellant was the person who has demanded and accepted Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification for sending the draft of GPF amount to Zila Parishad. 15. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case against the appellant was registered on 22.7.1988. So many years have passed. He has suffered both mentally and financially. He has further submitted that the appellant was 48 years old at the time of occurrence and now he is 62 years old, therefore, he prayed that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 16. The case against the appellant was registered on 22.7.1988. About 15 years have passed. The appellant has remained under the trauma of Criminal proceedings but at the same time, if the sentence is reduced to already undergone, it will be harmful to the society as the menace of corruption is increasing day by day in every sphere of life especially in the services. If the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone, it will encourage other persons in the society to commit such like offences, so, there must be deterrent sentence. 17. If the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone, it will encourage other persons in the society to commit such like offences, so, there must be deterrent sentence. 17. So taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that the appellant has already undergone the trauma of the trial for 5 years, therefore, the sentence of the appellant is reduced from two years to one year under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and one year to 6 months under Section 161 Indian Penal Code. Both the sentenced shall run concurrently. 18. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Appeal dismissed.