Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 73 (PNJ)

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-01-21

JASBIR SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Appellant, by filing this appeal, has laid challenge to the judgment and order dated 26.11.1991, vide which, he was found guilty and convicted for commission of an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine or Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo RI for a period of six months. 2. As per prosecution story, appellant had worked as Special Protection Officer (SPO) w.e.f. 5.6.1989 to 12.7.1989. It was allegation against him that after leaving service, he contacted certain innocent persons like Inderjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh etc. and assured them that he could get them enrolled as SPOs and he had developed relations with high police officials. For the said purpose, he demanded Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- to spend on entertaining senior officials. Money was paid to him as desired, however, none of the persons, from whom money was received, was got enrolled as SPO. He continued to assure them regarding their enrollment and even got Rs. 200/- from each of them on the pretext that the money was needed for the purpose of verification of their antecedents. He got signatures of those aspirants on blank papers. 3. When those people failed to get employment, they filed a complaint before SSP, Ferozepur. On coming to know of the same, appellant left his house and went to some unknown place. On the basis of allegations, referred to above, FIR was recorded against him. He was arrested and on completion of investigation, final report was submitted before trial Court. Vide order dated 26.3.1991 trial court charge-sheeted him for violation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution produced 13 witnesses to prove his guilt and also brought on record documentary evidence. 4. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he denied all the allegations appearing against him in prosecution evidence and claimed false implication. He took up a stand that he had falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of one Press Reporter, namely, Mahant and Mohan Singh Falianwala State President of Bahujan Samaj Party. He took up a stand that he had falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of one Press Reporter, namely, Mahant and Mohan Singh Falianwala State President of Bahujan Samaj Party. He further alleged that all the prosecution witnesses belong to the party named above. 5. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence found him guilty, convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in para 1 of this order. 6. Shri Manvinder Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that the judgment and order pased by the trial court were not justified, as the judgment is based on evidence, which is vague. He, by referring to the statements of PW2 to PW7 and PW12, contended that no specific date, time and month of alleged payment of money had been mentioned by any of these witnesses. He, by making reference to the statement of PW12, contended that the influence exercised by Mohan Singh Falianwala and Mahant and getting the case registered against the appellant, is apparent from the testimony of these witnesses. He further contended that all the PWs were members of Bahujan Samaj Party and they had hatched a conspiracy against the appellant at the instance of Mahant, who was very important person in that Party. By contending that no case was made out against appellant, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and he be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 7. Arguments raised by counsel for the appellant were vehemently opposed and refused by Shri G.S. Bhandari, DAG Punjab appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab. He, by referring to the statements of prosecution witnesses contended that the guilt of the appellant was proved on record and the punishment awarded to him was in proportion to the offence committed by the appellant. He prayed that appeal, having no substance be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the parties heard and with their assistance record has been perused. 9. A reading of the testimony of PW2 to PW7 and PW12 makes it very clear that all these witnesses have stated with one voice that the appellant had approached them with a promise that they would be enrolled as SPOs and he demanded Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- for that purpose. These witnesses had categorically stated that, amount as demanded, was paid to the appellant/accused and thereafter, he even charged Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- for that purpose. These witnesses had categorically stated that, amount as demanded, was paid to the appellant/accused and thereafter, he even charged Rs. 200/- from them on the pretext that the money was needed for verification of their antecedents. He got their signatures on blank papers. Appellant continued to assure the PWs that they will get the required employment as promised. When nothing happened for quite sometime, only then they approached the police and filed necessary affidavits levelling allegations against appellant/accused. 10. All the witnesses were cross-examined at length, but their testimony could not be shattered. Simply because, there existed some minor discrepancies here and there, regarding the manner in which money was paid, this Court feels, that will not undermine the truthfulness of prosecution story. No doubt, witnesses had failed to pin-point date and the month in which money was paid. All the witnesses were not very literate, as such, such a lapse is possible on their part. All the witnesses had stated that the money was in fact paid to the appellant between 2/2-1/2 years earlier to their making statements. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that there existed sufficient evidence on record, which indicated towards guilt of the appellant/accused. 11. A reading of statements of PW2 to PW7 and PW12 negatives arguments of the counsel for the appellant that the evidence against appellant was vague and not specific. Appellant/accused had failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were members of Bahujan Samaj Party. Simply because some important political leaders had gone with them to the police officials, was no ground to discard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Counsel for the appellant has failed to pin-point any legal infirmity in the order passed which may necessitate any interference by this Court, as such, conviction of the appellant is upheld. 12. However, keeping in view a fact that occurrence, allegedly, had taken place in the year 1989, appellant continued to suffer agony of trial for about 2 years and after conclusion of trial, his appeal is pending in this Court for the last about 12 years. During this period he may have suffered mentally and financially also, accordingly, his sentence is reduced from one year to seven months. With above mentioned modification, appeal stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed.