Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1002 (PNJ)

Niranjan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-09-20

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. Appellant Niranjan Singh was convicted by Special Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 15.12.1993 for offence under Section 5(2) of of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. 2. The facts of the case are that Niranjan Singh was posted as Peon in the Court of Shri M.L. Singal, (now retired Honble Judge of this Court) then Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. On 22.6.1987 Kapur Singh resident of village Dugal had made complaint before Shri M.L. Singal that an appeal titled as Sital Singh and others v. Gurbhal Singh was pending in his Court and Niranjan Singh accused-appellant who was a peon had called him 15 days prior to the decision in the appeal. He had demanded Rs. 15,000/- for getting a favourable decision in the appeal. At that time, he was accompanied by one Dalip Singh son of Bakhtaur Singh of his village. That amount of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to accused Niranjan Singh. However, the appeal was decided on 22.1.1987 against him. Then he had approached Niranjan Singh for return of the amount, which was not returned. Dalip Singh also submitted another complaint on similar facts. Shri M.L. Singal had recorded the statements of Kapur Singh and Dalip Singh on 26.6.1987 and had sent the papers to District & Sessions Judge, Patiala, for necessary action. On a D.O. Letter written by Shri S.K. Jain, District & Sessions Judge, Patiala, to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, case was registered against Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh was arrested and after investigation was challaned. Niranjan Singh faced trial for offence under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case was found to be proved. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal had been filed. 3. On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that Niranjan Singh was not caught while accepting the bribe money. It was argued that case was registered on 14.7.1987 although from the application of Kapur Singh dated 22.6.1987, it would appear that the case in which the bribe is stated to have been paid was decided by the Judge on 22.1.1987 and 15 days prior to that decision, the money had passed. It was argued that case was registered on 14.7.1987 although from the application of Kapur Singh dated 22.6.1987, it would appear that the case in which the bribe is stated to have been paid was decided by the Judge on 22.1.1987 and 15 days prior to that decision, the money had passed. It was argued that as such, there was delay of 4-5 months in reporting the matter to the Judge concerned and six months in loding the FIR. It was pointed out that Dalip Singh did not appear in the witness box during trial and there is sole testimony of Kapur Singh PW-7 who would be just an accomplice. Since according to him he had paid Rs. 15,000/- as bribe for getting the work done, no reliance can be placed on the statement of such person who allegedly paid money for getting the work done and after waiting for 5-6 months, then made the complaint. It was also argued that sanction for the prosecution accorded by District & Sessions Judge, Patiala is defective since in para No. 3 it was mentioned that out of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- had been recovered during investigation although there had been no recovery at all and at one stage Kapur Singh says that accused had returned Rs. 5,000/- whereas he had prayed for return of whole of the amount. It was argued that this conviction is based on probabilities. Counsel for the appellant has relied on Ayyasami v. State of T.N., 1992(1) RCR(Crl.) 413 (SC) : AIR 1992 S.C. 644, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 11 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 S.C. 707. 4. Niranjan Singh accused appellant was an employee in the Judicial Courts at Patiala working in the Court of Shri M.L. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. According to Shri Kapur Singh, complainant (PW-7), his sons namely Seetal Sigh, Gandhar Singh, Sajjan Singh and Mewa Singh were having litigation with Gurbhal Singh. The case has been decided by the Civil Court against his sons and then appeal was filed by his sons which was fixed for hearing in the Court of Shri M.L. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and that he was coming to the Court for Pervi for appeal on behalf of his sons. The case has been decided by the Civil Court against his sons and then appeal was filed by his sons which was fixed for hearing in the Court of Shri M.L. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and that he was coming to the Court for Pervi for appeal on behalf of his sons. Then Dalip Singh, a relation of Niranjan Singh, had taken him to Niranjan Singh accused and accused had claimed that he will get the work done and get the appeal decided in favour of his sons. Accused had demanded Rs. 15,000/- which was paid but after a few days, appeal was decided against his sons. Then he demanded back that money which was not returned, although accused had been assuring that he would return the money. However, only Rs. 5,000/- were returned. Then he made the complaint. 5. After complaint Ex. PE presented by Kapur Singh before Shri M.L. Singal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, he recorded the statements of Kapur Singh and Dalip Singh, wherein both Kapur Singh and Dalip Singh had stated that accused had taken Rs. 15,000/- for getting the appeal decided in favour of sons of Kapur Singh. It has also come in evidence that Dalip Singh happens to be a relative of Niranjan Singh and, therefore, it appears that he being reluctant to support prosecution case, was given up at the time of trial. It was admitted by the accused that even Dalip Singh was related to him. But there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Kapur Singh. It will be quite natural for him to first get his money back and wait for that money to be returned and when whole of the amount was not returned, then he feeling perturbed, had made the application. Delay in making application and then lodging FIR is not material in the facts of the case. 6. According to Kapur Singh, there was even exchange of hot words in the context of return of the money. In such matters no corroborative evidence will be available but there will be no cause to disbelieve Kapur Singh. 7. Sanction Exhibit PA gives all the detailed facts. Merely because it mentions that Rs. 5,000/- had been recovered during investigation, will not make the sanction invalid in any way. Shri M.L. Singal had been examined as PW-5 when he was Sessions Judge, Faridkot. 7. Sanction Exhibit PA gives all the detailed facts. Merely because it mentions that Rs. 5,000/- had been recovered during investigation, will not make the sanction invalid in any way. Shri M.L. Singal had been examined as PW-5 when he was Sessions Judge, Faridkot. He later on became an Honble Judge of this Court. He had deposed that applications Ex. PE of Kapur Singh and Exhibit PF of Dalip Singh were made before him and he had recorded the statements of those witnesses in his own handwriting about the money having been demanded by the accused and paid by Kapur Singh. He was cross-examined at length but nothing came out which may help the accused. So, there is corroboration to the statement of Kapur Singh PW-7. 8. From the above discussion, I hold that prosecution case against this Niranjan Singh for offence under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was duly proved and he was rightly convicted by the Court of Special Judge, Patiala. The appeal against conviction, as such, is dismissed. 9. It had been pointed out by counsel for the appellant that sentence awarded had been too harsh. That after conviction, the appellant was dismissed from service and he was already suffered quite enough. 10. I find that occurrence has taken place in the year 1987. Appellant had remained in custody for about 5-6 months as under trial prisoner and after conviction by the Court of Special Judge, Patiala. He was about 44-45 years of age when the offence was committed and has suffered quite enough by way of his dismissal from service. As such, sentence of four years imprisonment appears to be on higher side. The sentence of imprisonment is therefore, reduced from 4 years RI to 2 years RI. The sentence of fine shall remain intact as awarded by the Special Judge, Patiala. 11. With above modification, this appeal stands dismissed.