Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 264 (PNJ)

Baldev Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-02-15

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment passed by the Court of Special Judge, Patiala on 18.2.1991, vide which the appellant was convicted and sentenced for having committed an offence punishable under Section 5(i)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). 2. The facts of the case are that Baldev Singh-appellant had joined as Technical Assistant Grade-III in Food Corporation Punjab on 1.5.1970. He was promoted as Technical Assistant Grade-I on 24.5.1973 in the said Corporation and he was posted at Patran w.e.f. 30.12.1976. He had no immovable property as on 1.1.1975 but he started leading luxurious life and amassed assets worth lakhs of rupees. Accordingly, a case was registered against him for possessing property disproportionate to his known sources of income. The facts discovered during the investigation relating to the income of Baldev Singh, his expenses during the period from 1.1.1975 to 20.5.1982 and the properties movable and immovable acquired by him during the said period and the net assets which he came to hold were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The income of Baldev Singh, during the period from 1.1.1975 to 20.5.1982 was only about Rs. 69,232.54 by way of salary @ Rs. 800-900/- per month. He had no other source of legal income. During this period he had expended money to the tune of Rs. 1,02,137.12 and Rs. 2,96,683.29 were found to be in excess of his known sources of income. The case was investigated and he was sent up for trial before the Special Judge, CBI Punjab, Patiala. 3. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 5(i)(e) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, then in force. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all 48 witnesses besides producing a number of documents showing the assets and properties of the appellant disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant. Since prosecution had taken abnormal time in closing its evidence, therefore, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Court, vide order dated 3.1.1991. 5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to afford him an opportunity to explain his circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence. Since prosecution had taken abnormal time in closing its evidence, therefore, the prosecution evidence was closed by the Court, vide order dated 3.1.1991. 5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to afford him an opportunity to explain his circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed innocence. His version was that his wife is an earning hand. She was running a school. She was also carrying on sewing and stitching work. She used to do this work at every place of his posting. He also used to hand over his monthly salary to her and she used to manage the entire house with this money as well as her own income. He did not at any time possess assets disproportionate to his source of income. 6. In defence, the appellant examined his own wife, Gurdeep Kaur as DW-1 and closed the defence evidence. 7. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court held the accused guilty vide judgment dated 18.2.1991 and convicted him under Section 5(i)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 months. He was also burdened with a fine amount of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 8. Hence, the present appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the one hand learned trial Court has held that the amounts spent by the appellant could easily be spent from his own pay but at the same time, has convicted him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reference was made to paragraph 66 of the judgment in which it was so observed by the learned trial Court that the amount could easily be spent by him from his pay. Hence, it was prayed that the impugned judgment dated 18.2.1991 be set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 10. On the other hand, submission of learned standing counsel for CBI was that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the observations made by the learned trial Court in paragraph 66 were contrary to the evidence, which were brought on record. 11. 10. On the other hand, submission of learned standing counsel for CBI was that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the observations made by the learned trial Court in paragraph 66 were contrary to the evidence, which were brought on record. 11. I have gone through the entire record of this case including the evidence led by the prosecution and by the defence. I have also considered the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for CBI. 12. There are certain facts which are not in dispute that Baldev Singh- appellant was working as Technical Assistant Grade-I with Food Corporation Punjab in Patran Depot. It is also possibly not disputed that his monthly salary was Rs. 800-900/- per month and his total salary income for the period from 1.1.1975 to 20.5.1982 was calculated as Rs. 69,232.54. H.C. Bansal, Assistant Manager Accounts, FCI Head Quarter, New Delhi, had brought the official record from September 1975 to April 1982 and proved that for this period an amount of Rs. 61,978.79 was paid to Baldev Singh-appellant regarding pay and allowances etc. and an amount of Rs. 2,922.00 was also disbursed to Baldev Singh as his arrears of pay w.e.f. 4/75 to 8/75 and according to entire record a sum of Rs. 68,067.44 was paid to him. The total pay and allowances payable to Baldev Singh for the month of April 1982 was Rs. 1,165.10 and an amount of Rs. 389/- was also paid to him in respect of ADA/CPE arrears during the month of August, 1984. 13. However, the prosecution has led evidence to prove that the expenses incurred by the appellant, the properties movable and immovable amassed by him and the assets collected by him were of the value which was much more than his income. Although, the prosecution has examined 48 witnesses, but only a few of them are being discussed, who had deposed about material amounts spent or amassed or deposited and about the assets of the appellant collected during this period. 14. Subhash Chopra, PW-2 deposed that he was a property dealer running his property dealers business under the name and style of M/s. Subhash Mangat & Company for the last 13 years. He proved having known to Baldev Singh- appellant. 14. Subhash Chopra, PW-2 deposed that he was a property dealer running his property dealers business under the name and style of M/s. Subhash Mangat & Company for the last 13 years. He proved having known to Baldev Singh- appellant. Said Baldev Singh had contacted him for the purchase of plot No. 2679, Phase VII, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in the name of his wife. After consulting his record, this witness deposed that the appellant had come to his office in Sector 21, Opposite Scooter Market on 11.3.1982. Accordingly, he had drafted the affidavit and an agreement on behalf of the seller and purchaser and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the purchaser (Baldev Singh) to the seller namely, Baldev Krishan in his presence. The said agreement to sell has been proved as Exhibit PC, which was signed by the wife of Baldev Singh- appellant on his behalf. A receipt for this amount was given to the purchaser by Baldev Krishan. Its photocopy was proved to be Exhibit PD. He had entered it in his register. A photocopy of the entry from his register was proved as Exhibit PE. 15. Sham Lal Kaushal PW-5 was the Manager in State Bank of Patiala Kup Kala Branch near Malerkotla from 1982 to September 1984. Ram Das was Head Cashier in the said branch. After narrating the whole procedure by which the account is opened and operated in the said bank and after identifying the signatures of the Head Cashier Ram Das, this witness proved some documents and deposed that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited in the name of Gurmit Kaur wife of Baldev Singh and in the name of his minor sons. He also identified the appellant in the Court and deposed that he had been operating the saving bank account in their bank branch. Baldev Singh had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,704/- his saving bank account. 16. Satwant Singh PW-6 was running arms dealer business at Ludhiana under the name and style of M/s. Grewal Gun House since 1971. He was the sole proprietor of this business concern. He brought the record of his business concern and proved that at entry No. 354 dated 28.11.1981 in his register a. 32 bore revolver was sold to Baldev Singh-appellant for a sum of Rs. 5,150/-. He was the sole proprietor of this business concern. He brought the record of his business concern and proved that at entry No. 354 dated 28.11.1981 in his register a. 32 bore revolver was sold to Baldev Singh-appellant for a sum of Rs. 5,150/-. It was second hand revolver, which the seller had sold to the appellant through him. He also proved copies of the entries from his register. 17. The next material witness is Babu Ram PW-9, who deposed that he had sold one house situated at Patran on 4.10.1979 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused vide sale deed Exhibit PDD. This witness was not even cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. 18. Sham Lal PW-13 is also one of the material witness. He is running the business of commission agents under the name and style of Sham Lal Krishan Gopal at Patran for the last 5/7 years prior to his making the statement in the Court. He knew Baldev Singh-appellant who was posted as FCI Inspector. He took Rs. 20,000/- as loan from the appellant in the year 1981. It was received in three parts. Twice to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- each and once Rs. 10,000/- on interest @ 18% per annum. He also proved receipts Exhibit PMM and PMM/1. In cross-examination, he deposed that Rs. 5,000/- was received by him on 2.7.1981 and the other instalment of Rs. 5,000/- was received by him on 10.7.1981. 19. Sohan Lal PW-15 is another material witness, who is also commission agent at Patran. He deposed that Baldev Singh-appellant was working as Quality Inspector in FCI at Patran and he (PW-15) had taken a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from him (accused) on 30.4.1982 on interest @ 18% per annum. He also proved writing Exhibit POO dated 1.5.1982. The said loan was utilised in the business of the firm and this amount taken from the accused was entered into their account books. 20. B.B. Bhatia, PW-21 is Executive Engineer, Central PWD Chandigarh Division, Chandigarh. He had received a letter from CBI for assessing the value of the building of Baldev Singh. He had deputed Sh. O.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer for this purpose, who submitted his report vide letter dated 6.12.1984 and it was proved that the cost of construction of the house of Baldev Singh was more than Rs. 50,000/-. He had received a letter from CBI for assessing the value of the building of Baldev Singh. He had deputed Sh. O.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer for this purpose, who submitted his report vide letter dated 6.12.1984 and it was proved that the cost of construction of the house of Baldev Singh was more than Rs. 50,000/-. This was the cost of construction which did not include the cost of plot. 21. Rattan Bhatacharaya, Junior Assistant, M/s. Peerless General Finance Investment Company Ltd. appeared as PW-24. He was working in Jalandhar Branch from 3.12.1980 to 2.9.1983. He proved that Baldev Singh (appellant) son of Joginder Singh had purchased endowment certificate for a value of Rs. 25,000/-. The yearly instalment of this endowment certificate was payable at the rate of Rs. 1337.50. 22. Rattan Lal PW-32, had joined the search made by several Inspectors of CBI in the house of Baldev Singh. Ashwani Kumar Inspector was one of them. He also proved that some documents were taken into possession. 23. Ronaq Ram PW-14 again is a material witness who is running the business of gold smith at Patran for more than 20 years. He further deposed that about 3 years back, the police had produced before him four bangles, one pair of earrings, two finger rings, one pendal and one nathni of gold including one gold karah. The total weight of these gold ornaments was 136 grams 800 miligrams. The gold ornaments were brought to him by the police Inspector Ashwani Kumar for weighing. The rate of gold at that time was Rs. 1,670/- per 10 grams. 24. Manjit Singh PW-40 was proprietor of Dashmesh Property Dealers, Ludhiana. This business was earlier being run by his father Surjit Singh. He brought the record of registered sale deeds and proved entry dated 7.4.1981 by which Nachattar Singh had sold a plot for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of the wife of Baldev Singh. Besides, sale consideration, Baldev Singh had also spent a sum of Rs. 1,200/- as expenditure on account of registration. 25. Ram Dass, PW-44 was Head Cashier in State Bank of Patiala, branch Kup Kalan. He had deposed that he knew Baldev Singh-appellant son of Joginder Singh of village Alamgir. Said Baldev Singh had opened a fixed deposit account of Rs. 5,000/- each in the name of his minor sons and he also opened an account for Rs. 25. Ram Dass, PW-44 was Head Cashier in State Bank of Patiala, branch Kup Kalan. He had deposed that he knew Baldev Singh-appellant son of Joginder Singh of village Alamgir. Said Baldev Singh had opened a fixed deposit account of Rs. 5,000/- each in the name of his minor sons and he also opened an account for Rs. 10,000/- in the name of his wife (Gurmit Kaur). 26. Although there were other numerous financial transactions entered into by Baldev Singh-appellant, but I have not given importance to those transactions involving the smaller amounts. However, the amounts referred to above, relate to transactions involving thousands of rupees, which possibly Baldev Singh could not have entered with the salary income at his disposal. 27. The accused has taken the plea that his wife was running a school and she was also doing the work of stitching and tailoring, therefore, she had her income also to supplement the income of the accused. 28. Appearing as DW-1, Gurdeep Kaur, wife of the appellant has deposed that she was Matric pass. She had undergone sewing and stitching course of two years. She has got three brothers. Two of her brothers were living in foreign country. Her parents had given her in dowry gold weighing 25 tolas in the shape of ornaments and other articles of furniture including fridge, TV, cooler, almirah and dewan. She was also given dowry by the parents of her husband including 15 tolas of gold ornaments. She was running a business of stitching and sewing and she was also running an educational institution. She was also doing tuition work and was earning Rs. 500 to Rs. 600/- per month. Then they came to Patran in 1976, where also she continued doing stitching work as well as the tuition work. She had given her school to Urmila, as she was doing good business of sewing and stitching and she was earning Rs. 1200/- per month at Patran. In the year 1979, She had Rs. 32,000/- with her. She had sold her ornaments also to Ram Lal, which fetched her Rs. 30,000/-. She had purchased a house at Patran for Rs. 10,000/- from one Babu Ram but the sale deed was executed in favour of her husband. She had also purchased a plot at Ludhiana one year thereafter for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. She had also given an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. She had purchased a house at Patran for Rs. 10,000/- from one Babu Ram but the sale deed was executed in favour of her husband. She had also purchased a plot at Ludhiana one year thereafter for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. She had also given an amount of Rs. 5,150/- to her husband for purchasing the revolver. She had deposited Rs. 5,000/- each in the name of her minor sons in Kup Kalan Branch. She had also deposited Rs. 10,000/- in the fixed deposit account in her name. Her husband had also got deposited certain amounts in the bank which she had given to him. Then she had sold her plot at Ludhiana for Rs. 30,000/- to Amarjit Singh. She denied having executed any agreement but deposed that she had purchased a plot of 200 yard at Mohali for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from one Baldev Krishan. 29. This submission and evidence have been considered by me. So far as running of school and running of tuition classes are concerned, it is not only improbable but also unbelievable. In the opening line of her statement, Gurdeep Kaur DW-1 has deposed that she is only Matric Pass. Therefore, it cannot be believed that a Matric pass can run a school or if she can carry on the tuition classes. In the cross-examination, she deposed that she had no such permission from any authorities to run the school. She also deposed that she was not maintaining any record regarding her income nor she had produced any documentary evidence regarding her income from the school or tuition classes or from the stitching and sewing business. She also deposed that she had not filed any income tax return. Therefore, this statement of Gurdeep Kaur, DW-1, appears to be imaginary and concocted version, particularly, when she had not produced any documentary evidence regarding her income from sewing and stitching business or from running a school. Therefore, it appears that statement made by Gurdeep Kaur is only imaginary without any truth in it. 30. Since, Baldev Singh had no other source of income, except his own salary, therefore, it appears to be highly improbable that he could deal in transactions worth thousands of rupees without the corruption money particularly, when his income was Rs. 800/- per month or less than that. 30. Since, Baldev Singh had no other source of income, except his own salary, therefore, it appears to be highly improbable that he could deal in transactions worth thousands of rupees without the corruption money particularly, when his income was Rs. 800/- per month or less than that. From that evidence discussed above, therefore, it is clearly proved that Baldev Singh-appellant was admittedly possessing assets and properties which were disproportionate to his known source of income. He was advancing money in thousands to others on interest and he was purchasing plots for the value of thousands of rupees and he had opened bank accounts in thousands in the name of his sons and wife, when his monthly salary was sufficient only to enable him to live from hand to mouth. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant- Baldev Singh was possessing property more than his means which proved that he was adopting corrupt means which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Section 5(i)(e) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 then in force. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is up-held. The accused-appellant has rightly been held guilty and convicted under Section 5(i)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which is equivalent to Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 31. Since the appellant has faced the pendency of this appeal for more than 15 years, therefore, his sentence is reduced to one year, but the fine amount remains unchanged. Therefore, this appeal is partly accepted to the extent that the sentence is reduced to one year from 15 months, otherwise the same is dismissed. 32. The appellant is on bail. He be re-arrested immediately for undergoing the remaining part of his sentences. Appeal partly allowed.