Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 80 (PNJ)

Bhagirath Lal v. State of Punjab

2004-01-26

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2004
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - The appellant, Bhagirath Lal, was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the Act) and Section 409/467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court in its judgment dated 22.7.1991 acquitted him of the offence under Section 5(2) of the Act, but after having found him guilty under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him as under :- Under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2-3. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment. 5. The facts of the case are as under :- Bhagirath Lal appellant was working as the Secretary of the Market Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi. In the year 1976-77, the Market Committee gave a contract worth Rs. Three lacs to several contractors for the supply of storage bins for wheat, which were to be supplied to farmers on a subsidy of 75%. The specification for the bins provided that they were to be made of 24 gauge iron sheeting. It is the case of the prosecution that bins of 8 quintals instead of 10 quintals capacity and of 26 gauge sheets instead of 24 gauge were prepared which were thus sub-standard. It is further the prosecutions case that these bins had been accepted by the appellant after receiving a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as illegal gratification. When this information was received by the Market Committee, an FIR was lodged. Inspector Raja Singh investigated the case and got the bins checked from one Tarsem Singh, Quality Promotion Officer, who found that they were of inferior quality and of lower capacity. It was also found that Bhagirath Lal had received Rs. 68,000/- as illegal gratification from Ravinderpal Singh contractor so as to clear the aforesaid bins. Inspector Raja Singh investigated the case and got the bins checked from one Tarsem Singh, Quality Promotion Officer, who found that they were of inferior quality and of lower capacity. It was also found that Bhagirath Lal had received Rs. 68,000/- as illegal gratification from Ravinderpal Singh contractor so as to clear the aforesaid bins. It was further found on a perusal of the record, which too was seized by the Investigating Officer, that the bins had been allegedly supplied to several persons, who had in fact not received and to others who were not entitled thereto and that forgery had been committed in the record to show that the delivery had been made. 6. The Court, found that the appellant had been working as the Secretary of the Market Committee, Sultanpur Lodhi in the year 1976-77 and as per Section 14(7) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, it was his duty to maintain the day-to-day account and to look after the affairs of the committee. The Court also examined paragraph 3 of the Scheme for providing metallic bins on subsidised rates to farmers and observed that as per the Scheme the bins of certain specifications were to be obtained and distributions made through the Secretary of the committee. The Court further observed that it was clear from the register, Annexure P-2, that the bins had in fact been received by the appellant from the manufacturers. The Court also relied on the statement of Kartar Singh (PW-1), who had stated that he had given an application, Exh.P-1, for the supply of bins but entry Exh.P2 did not bear his signatures as he always signed in Urdu. Likewise the Court relied on the statement of Baldev Singh (PW-2), who gave an application, Exh. P-4, but denied that entry Exh.P-4 bore his thumb impression. The evidence of Balwant Singh (PW-3), Davinder Singh (PW-4), Santa Singh (PW-7), Niku Ram (PW-8), Gurdeep Singh (PW-10), Banta Singh (PW-11), Mohinder Singh (PW-13), and Swaran Singh (PW-15) much to the same effect was also relied upon. The Court accordingly concluded that though the record of the Market Committee showed that the bins had been supplied to the aforesaid persons, in fact no such delivery had been made. The Court accordingly concluded that though the record of the Market Committee showed that the bins had been supplied to the aforesaid persons, in fact no such delivery had been made. The Court further observed that it was clear from the statement of Jagir Singh Chowkidar (PW-21) that there was no person of the name of Dalip Singh son of Teja Singh, (sic) Singh son of Munshi Singh, Malkiat Singh son of Kartar Chand, Hazara Singh son of Bhola Singh, Niku Ram son of Maghi Ram of village Shahtabgarh, to whom the bins had been shown to have been supplied. The Court accordingly convicted the accused. 7. I have heard Mr. Vinod Ghai, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri G.S. Gill, the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State and have gone through the record. 8. In the light of the voluminous evidence which has been noted by the trial Court, it is clear that the case against the appellant stands proved beyond doubt. The statement of the above-mentioned witnesses who bore no animosity towards the appellant clearly reveal that the appellant had not only accepted the supply of sub-standard bins but had also not supplied them to farmers as per the requirement of the Scheme and that he had forged the record to show that delivery had been made. I, therefore, find absolutely no ground for interference in the conviction of the appellant. 9. Mr. Ghai has further argued that the matter has been pending in one Court or the other for the last 27 years, some mitigation in the sentence was called for in the light of the fact that the appellant at the time when the prosecution had been launched was 58 years of age. I find merit in this plea. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to six months on both counts with the other part of the sentence being retained as it is. Appeal dismissed.