Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 915 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-07-09

K.S.GAREWAL

body2003
JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Ranjit Singh appellant was posted as establishment Clerk in the office of District Education Officer (Primary), Ferozepur when on November 14, 1986 he was caught red handed accepting Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification from Om Parkash, brother of Roshan Lal for getting the transfer order of Roshan Lal issued as Head Teacher in Government Primary School, Gharumi. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur and convicted on October 7, 1988 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years under Section 161 Indian Penal Code Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved Ranjit Singh has filed the present appeal. 2. In 1986 Roshan Lal was promoted as Head Teacher and being ill he asked his brother Om Parkash to take his application for posting as Head Teacher at Gharumi, District Fazilka. Om Parkash took the application and got it recommended from the Education Minister at Chandigarh, thereafter Om Parkash went to the District Education Officer at Ferozepur on November 5, 1986 and on learning that the District Education Officer was away to Abohar, Om Parkash followed him to Abohar with the application Ex. PA. Jogjodh Singh Dhillon (PW 1) was the District Education Officer at that time. He made his endorsement Ex.PA/1 on the application. At the relevant time Ranjit Singh was working as Establishment Assistant in the office of the District Education Officer. He accordingly prepared note Ex. PB. It was approved by Jagjodh Singh vide Ex. PB/1. Thereafter, Om Parkash presented the application to the appellant and the appellant demanded Rs. 500/- saying that he would get the work done from the District Education Officer. On the request of Om Parkash the amount was reduced to Rs. 300/-. Om Parkash told the appellant that he would bring the money after a day or two. 3. PB/1. Thereafter, Om Parkash presented the application to the appellant and the appellant demanded Rs. 500/- saying that he would get the work done from the District Education Officer. On the request of Om Parkash the amount was reduced to Rs. 300/-. Om Parkash told the appellant that he would bring the money after a day or two. 3. On November 14, 1986 Om Parkash reported the matter to Vigilance Inspector Tara Chand Sharma (PW 9) at 11.50 AM vide application Ex. PH. whereupon the case was registered at P.S. Sadar Ferozepur under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code at 12.10. PM vide FIR Ex. PH/1. Thereafter, a trap was laid to entrap the appellant. Numbers of three noes of Rs. 100/- each were noted, phenolphthalein powder was applied on these notes and these were handed over to Om Parkash. Inder Singh P.W. was to act as a shadow witness during the raid. The raid was carried out as planned. Om Parkash and Inder Singh went to the appellants office while the remaining members of the raiding party remained behind and followed them silently. When Inder Singh gave the pre-arranged signal, Inspector Tara Chand Sharma along with Sham Lal raided the appellants office and recovered Rs. 300/- from the right side pocket of the shirt. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the number already noted by the Inspector, the shirts pocket was washed in solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. After completing other aspects of the investigation, sanction for prosecution of the appellant was obtained from Director of Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab on July 29, 1987. The sanction order being Ex. PC. On completion of the case accused was sent up for trial. 4. At the trial charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Jagjodh Singh Dhillon, retired District Education Officer (PW 1), Om Parkash (PW 6), Inder Singh (PW 7) (witness did not support the prosecution), Sham Lal (PW 8) and Inspector Tara Chand Sharma (PW 9). 5. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Jagjodh Singh Dhillon, retired District Education Officer (PW 1), Om Parkash (PW 6), Inder Singh (PW 7) (witness did not support the prosecution), Sham Lal (PW 8) and Inspector Tara Chand Sharma (PW 9). 5. In his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant admitted as correct that Om Parkashs brother Roshan Lal had been promoted as Head Teacher and also admitted as correct that the recommendation letter had been endorsed by Jagjodh Singh (PW 1) after which he had prepared the note. However, the appellant denied that Om Parkash approached him and that he demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/-, the matter being settled for Rs. 300/-, whereafter on November 14, 1986 the amount was paid to him after which the amount was recovered on the basis of the raid. The appellant gave the following explanation :- "I got the application from the Diary Clerk on 10.11.86. I was on leave on 11.11.86. I made noting on 12.11.86 in the case of Raj Kumar and Roshan Lal and put up before the District Education Officer. The same day Om Parkash came to me and enquired about the orders of Roshan Lal and I told him that I had sent my noting to the D.E.O. He wanted the orders that very day that I showed my inability. He became annoyed and started talking loudly and I turned him out from my office. He felt insulted and went away giving threats. I made a report in writing to the District Education Officer regarding this incident. A letter was circulated to the Block Education Officers that teacher should himself come in such like cases. I was on leave on 13.11.86. At 9.30 a.m. On 14.11.86 I went to the B.E.O. to take information regarding audit inspection. The office is in Tahli Mohalla, Ferozepur City. I came back at 11.15 a.m. in the office. When I was about to enter my office, Om Parkash tried to forcibly put the money in my pocket and I threw the money, taking it out of my pocket along with his hand. He again tried to put the money and I again repeated the same. In the meantime two constables of Vigilance Staff caught hold of me from the arms and made me sit in the chair of the office and falsely involved me in this case. He again tried to put the money and I again repeated the same. In the meantime two constables of Vigilance Staff caught hold of me from the arms and made me sit in the chair of the office and falsely involved me in this case. I made roulla of false implication but none heard me. I never demanded nor accepted the money. I am innocent." 6. The learned Special Judge accepted the prosecution case while rejecting the defence argument that the tainted amount was forcibly put in the appellants pocket by Om Parkash. On November 12, 1985 the appellant had a quarrel with Om Parkash regarding which he had lodged a report with the District Education Officer, therefore, he would not have demanded any bribe on November 13 as alleged. The discrepancy in the prosecution case, failure of Inder Singh to support the prosecution and invalidity of sanction etc. were the other arguments of the defence which were raised and discarded by the learned Special Judge. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced. 7. In appeal it was argued that the counter version of the appellant had not been properly considered even though there was documentary corroboration coming forth regarding the quarrel between the appellant and Om Parkash which had been brought to the notice of the District Education Officer by the appellant through his complaint dated November 12, 1986 Ex. DC. This complaint had given rise to the direction being sent to Roshan Lal through the Block Primary Education Officer, Fazilka on the same very day by the District Education Officer that Roshan Lals brother Om Parkash had misbehaved with the official in the office on November 12 and that Roshan Lal should personally attend the officer to pursue his case and should not send his relatives for this purpose. The letter had been proved on record as Ex. DD. It was also argued that the demand of bribe and the date on which the demand had been made had not been proved. It had simply been stated the demand had been made one day before the occurrence. Therefore, there had not been any specific demand made by the appellant at any specific time and for this reason an important limb of the prosecution case had not been established. It had simply been stated the demand had been made one day before the occurrence. Therefore, there had not been any specific demand made by the appellant at any specific time and for this reason an important limb of the prosecution case had not been established. In cross-examination Om Parkash had admitted that when he was in the process of offering the bribe money the appellant had refused to accept it saying that he would take the money when the work was done, whereupon he accepted the money and kept it but he had first returned the money and then it was again given to him. In fact the appellant refused the money once or twice. From this an argument built up was that no bribe had been accepted by the appellant and the money had been forcibly put in the appellants pocket. Lastly, it was argued that the shadow witness did not support the prosecution and another limb of the prosecution case was missing. 8. In bribery cases prosecution evidence should be clear and specific with regard to the important ingredients of the offence. Demand of bribe, acceptance thereof and recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused seem to be some of the important aspects of a successful prosecution. In the present case Om Parkashs brother Roshan Lal had been promoted from Teacher to Head Teacher and he had obtained through his brother Om Parkash (PW 6) a recommendation that he be adjusted against the vacant post. On the basis of this recommendation noting was prepared by the appellant. The recommendation of the noting are Exs. PA and PB. Although Jagjodh Singh (PW 1) had testified that the application had been brought by hand by Roshan Lal to him the prosecution evidence is otherwise to the effect that the application had been brought by Roshan Lals brother Om Parkash who is the bribe giver. It may be noted that Roshan Lal was never examined as a witness. The application Ex. PA was addressed to the Education Minister, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein Roshan Lal had pleaded that he was due for appointment as Head Teacher after his promotion and the station to which he was to be posted did not suit him as it was out side his block. The application Ex. PA was addressed to the Education Minister, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein Roshan Lal had pleaded that he was due for appointment as Head Teacher after his promotion and the station to which he was to be posted did not suit him as it was out side his block. Moreover, on account of his health and age it was difficult for him to transfer to the other block. The post of Head Teacher was due to fall vacant in Government Primary School, Gharumi on November 2, 1986 and he prayed that he be posted against the post. This application was forwarded to the District Education Officer with the recommendation of the Education Minister. Through his endorsement the Education Officer directed the office to prepare a proposal accordingly. It was thereafter that the appellant prepared the proposal Ex. PB stating that Roshan Lal be posted to Gharumi in accordance with the directions issued by the Education Minister. This proposal was put up before the District Education Officer who accepted it on November 12, 1986. It may be appreciated that Roshan Lal obtained a recommendation from the Education Minister for his posting and the proposal itself had been prepared in accordance therewith and accepted by the District Education Officer. Nothing had remained for the appellant to do thereafter except to issue the necessary orders. It is hardly likely that the appellant would be in a position to disobey or disregard the proposal and refuse to issue the posting/transfer orders. Therefore, there was really no reason for the appellant to demand and for Om Parkash to pay any bribe for a job that had already been completed and for which only formal order remained to be issued. According to the appellant he had a quarrel with Om Parkash on November 12, 1986 at 12.30 P.M. The entire occurrence was reported by the appellant to the District Education Officer through letter Ex. DC. It was on the basis of this very letter that the District Education Officer issued directions to Roshan Lal through letter dated November 12, 1986 Ex. DD. The District Education Officer was examined as P.W. 1 and he accepted that he had passed the said orders to the effect that nobody should approach the establishment and if there was any request or complaint it should be sent to him directly. DD. The District Education Officer was examined as P.W. 1 and he accepted that he had passed the said orders to the effect that nobody should approach the establishment and if there was any request or complaint it should be sent to him directly. The witness also accepted that he might (have) passed an order on the application of the accused and that he had issued a letter Mark B (Ex. DB) 9. The next question which requires consideration is the demand of bribe. According to Om Parkash it was a day before the occurrence that the appellant had demanded Rs. 500/- for getting the order passed and settled for Rs. 300/-. If the court accepts that the two of them had a quarrel on November 12, 1986 and the matter was reported to the authorities and stands proved on the basis of the record and particularly on the basis of letters Ex. DC and DD then it is extremely unlikely that on the following day the appellant would demand a bribe from Om Parkash. However, it is quite likely that Om Parkash may have felt cut up and may have decided to get the appellant trapped in a bribery case. Evidence of traps is always nearly perfect. The investigating officer organises the trap by putting together a trap party and then assigns each member his role. The bribe money is dusted with powder, the numbers of the currency notes are noted and then handed over to the bribe giver who proceeds to the seat/office of the person to whom the bribe is to be paid, the bribe giver is accompanied by a shadow witness who gives a prearranged signal after the bribe had been paid and accepted and the raiding party reaches the spot to recover the bribe money. All these steps are well planned and occasionally well rehearsed, therefore, it is highly unlikely that any thing would go wrong. Indeed nothing ever goes wrong. Similarly in the present case the tarp was perfectly laid, the money was paid to the appellant and recovered from him. At first flush this would seem to be an open and shut case but there are two aspects of the case which strike deep into the prosecution version. The first point to be noted is that the trap witness namely Inder Singh (PW7) did not whole-heartedly support the prosecution. At first flush this would seem to be an open and shut case but there are two aspects of the case which strike deep into the prosecution version. The first point to be noted is that the trap witness namely Inder Singh (PW7) did not whole-heartedly support the prosecution. In his evidence he described how the trap had been planned and how he along with Om Parkash, Inspector Tara Chand Sharma and two-three Constables gone to the appellants office and how they had met him there but he did not hear any talk between Om Parkash and the appellant. Inder Singh testified that Om Parkash told him that he was giving money but the appellant was not accepting it. He, however, stated that no money had passed in his presence. The witness was cross-examined after he was declared hostile but nothing material was elicited from him. 10. In cross-examination Om Parkash testified as under :- "The accused was given money as per demand earlier, and he told me that he would take the money when the work would be done and I told him that I have got the money and he accepted and kept it. The accused had first returned the money and then I again gave him and he kept. The accused refused the money once or twice to accept the amount. It is incorrect that the accused did not demand any money. It is further incorrect that he did not accept the money." 11. The appellants version is that the money was forcibly put in his pocket although he was not accepting it and had indeed refused to accept it once or twice. Under the circumstances even if the money was recovered from the appellant and the colour of the solution turned pink after hand wash and shirt wash, can it be said that the appellant accepted the bribe or whether the appellant accepted the amount not as bribe but as a present being a token of gratitude for the posting of Roshan Lal at the desired place. 12. In the above circumstances the events as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses do not seem to be the correct narration of what had transpired. The complainant was really acting on behalf of his brother and his previous misbehaviour had been reported to the departmental seniors and guide-lines had been issued. 12. In the above circumstances the events as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses do not seem to be the correct narration of what had transpired. The complainant was really acting on behalf of his brother and his previous misbehaviour had been reported to the departmental seniors and guide-lines had been issued. Therefore, it seems to be difficult to accept that after a few days the appellant would happily and willingly entertain Om Parkash in his office although Om Parkash may still try to impose himself upon the appellant. Therefore, the important factors of demand and acceptance of bribe are open to some doubt, although the recovery of the alleged bribe is not. Consequently, there appears to be some merit in this appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of all charges. Appeal allowed.