JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J Accused-appellant Dhoop Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the learned Special Judge, Sirsa and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- for accepting bribe of Rs.2000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that at the time of incident i.e. on 19.5.1993 the accused was posted as a Revenue Patwari, Halqa Dhanoor and Abutgarh. On the death of Kartar Singh, Jeet Singhcomplainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) requested the accused to get the mutation of inheritance of Kartar Singh entered and sanctioned in his favour as well as in favour of his three brothers. On the consistent demand of Rs.5000/- made by the accused for doing the needful, the bargain was settled at Rs.2000/-. Since the complainant was reluctant to meet the demand, he approached DSP Banarsi Dass, who recorded his statement Ex.PE, on the basis of which FIR was registered. He joined A.K. Goel SDO, PWD (B&R) and after receiving 20 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each from the complainant, prepared the memo Ex.PF mentioning the numbers of the currency notes. He also prepared search memo of the complainant and Didar Singh (a shadow witness) vide memo Ex.PG. DSP Banarsi Dass applied phenol phetholein powder to the currency notes handed over the same to the complainant. DSP Banarsi Dass also gave demonstration by applying phenol phetholein on a white paper and by rubbing it against another paper and dipping the paper in the water. Sodium carbonate was added to the said water, consequently it became pinkish. Thereafter the said solution was put in an empty quarter bottle which was sealed with the seal baring impression “MS” and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. He also told the witnesses to give a signal of the acceptance of the bribe by the accused. After reaching the office of the accused, the complainant went inside the office, whereas, Didar Singh, a shadow witness, stayed behind the door. The remaining police party also stayed back in the street. Then on demand made by the accused, the complainant handed over the amount of Rs.2000/- to him. After reaching the office of the accused, the complainant went inside the office, whereas, Didar Singh, a shadow witness, stayed behind the door. The remaining police party also stayed back in the street. Then on demand made by the accused, the complainant handed over the amount of Rs.2000/- to him. At this, on giving signal by Didar Singh, DSP Banarsi Dass along with the police officials as well as A.K. Goel, an independent witness, reached the accused. After disclosing his identity, the Investigating Officer searched the accused and recovered the sum of Rs.2000/- from the right side pocket of his pant vide memo Ex.PJ. The currency notes on putting into the water solution, the same became pinkish. The said currency notes tallied with the memo already prepared by him. After completion of all other formalities, the Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan; took into possession roznamcha Ex.P6; mutation register Ex.P7 vide memo Ex.PL; recorded statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation and after getting sanction of prosecution of the accused Ex.PC, challan against him was presented in the Court. 3. Consequently, he was charged under Section 7 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 4. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined Sukhdev Singh Naib Tehsildar (PW1) to prove the posting of the accused as Patwari Halqa Dhanoor on the day of occurrence. He further proved that the village Abutgarh falls in the said Halqa. He also proved the copy of the order of appointment and posting Ex.PA and Ex.PB relating to the accused. 5. Om Parkash Mann (PW2) Steno in the office of D.C. Sirsa proved the sanction order Ex.PC. 6. Inderjit Draftsman (PW3) proved the scaled site plan Ex.PD of the place of recovery. 7. Jeet Singh (PW4), Didar Singh (PW5), A.K. Goel (PW6) and DSP (Retd.) Banarsi Dass (PW7) depicted the time, place and the manner in which the demand was made, accepted and the recovery was effected. All the four witnesses consistently testified about the treating of the currency notes; demonstration; search of the accused and the recovery of the currency notes. They also testified about the washing of the hands and pockets of the pant of the accused and taking into possession all the documents as referred to above. 8. All the four witnesses consistently testified about the treating of the currency notes; demonstration; search of the accused and the recovery of the currency notes. They also testified about the washing of the hands and pockets of the pant of the accused and taking into possession all the documents as referred to above. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and claimed himself to be innocent. He further alleged that the mutation in question stood already entered in the register on 23.10.1992 vide mutation No.1467 Ex.DA and verified by the Kanungo on 24.11.1992. He further stated that it was put up before the Circle Revenue Officer on 8.1.1993 and 11.1.1993 but could not be attested due to the absence of the parties on these dates. He further alleged that the rapat roznamcha No.187 was entered on 22.10.1992 in the presence of the complainant and Balbir Singh Lamberdar, on the basis of which mutation was entered on 23.10.1992. He further explained that as a matter of fact, the complainant and Didar Singh wanted him to make a wrong report in order to secure Lal Mal loan but he was helpless. Consequently, they threatened him to face consequences. As a matter of fact, neither he demanded nor accepted any bribe. 9. In defence, the accused examined Dharam Pal Kanungo (DW1) who verified the mutation No.1467 Ex.DF in mutation register Ex.P7 on 24.11.1992, but the mutation could not be sanctioned for want of presence of the parties. 10. Sube Singh Lamberdar of the village Abutgarh while appearing as DW-2 testified that the accused was taken by some vigilance personnels from the office and he was implicated in a case. 11. Shashi Kant Clerk (DW3) proved the suspension order dated 4.3.1993 of A.K. Goel Sub Divisional Engineer along with other officers of PWD (B&R) Ex.DG along with its endorsement letter Ex.DH. 12. The trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. 13. Arguments heard. Record perused. 14. The prosecution banks upon the testimony of Jeet Singh (PW4), Didar Singh (PW5) which finds corroboration from A.K. Goel (PW6). 12. The trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. 13. Arguments heard. Record perused. 14. The prosecution banks upon the testimony of Jeet Singh (PW4), Didar Singh (PW5) which finds corroboration from A.K. Goel (PW6). The prime argument set forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Jeet Singh (PW4) and Didar Singh (PW5) are interested witnesses, whereas, A.K. Goel (PW6) was suspended on account of corruption case against him, therefore, he could be dubbed as a convenient witness for the prosecution, therefore, their testimonies are hardly sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 15. Having deliberated over the issue and having gone through the suspension order Ex.DG, it reveals that A.K. Goel has been suspended along with some other officials but no order containing grounds suspension have been produced on the record. It may be further added that A.K. Goel though was under suspension prior to the occurrence i.e. 4.3.1993 but was not under suspension on the date of occurrence. There is nothing to show that he was suspended on the report made by the vigilance department or was involved in some vigilance inquiry, therefore, it would be hard to observe that he was under obligation or influence of the Vigilance Department. Consequently, he cannot be dubbed as a convenient witness of the police, rather A.K. Goel (PW6) having stood the test of cross examination, being a gazetted officer could be placed reliance particularly when he had no prejudice or bias against the accused. 16. As regards the testimony of DSP (Retd.) Banarsi Dass (PW7), he even after his retirement has supported the prosecution case in all minute details. It would be worthwhile to mention here that nothing has been brought on record to establish that if the complainant or Didar Singh ever applied for seeking report of Patwari for securing Lal Mal loan. He has also not proved the report which he made on the said application. 17. No force could be found in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the bribe sought for by the accused was to be given to him on account of entering the mutation regarding inheritance of Kartar Singh, since the mutation already stood entered on 23.10.1992, whereas the occurrence took place on 9.5.1993, therefore, the question of making demand and payment of the said amount does not arise. 18. 18. After deliberating over the matter for some time, I feel myself not persuaded by the aforesaid argument. Ex.PE i.e. statement made by the complainant, on the basis of which the case was registered against the accused reveals that the amount was demanded and was to be paid to the accused for doing entire proceedings of the mutation including the sanction thereof. It is a fact that mutation was not sanctioned by Tehsildar till that time, though, it has been entered 7 months earlier. It may further be observed that even according to the accused, the mutation was presented before the Tehsildar on 8.1.1993 and 11.1.1993 by him, but no order could be passed due to absence of the parties. At the same time, no evidence has been led that the accused had informed orally or verbally to the complainant and his brothers to come present on the date the Assistant Collector visited the village. The marking of absence of the complainant and his brothers on the date of visit of the Assistant Collector goes a long way to establish the malafide intention of the accused and non-fulfillment of the demand made by him. Had the complainant came to know about the visit of Tehsildar on the aforesaid dates or had he been informed to appear before the Assistant Collector, then he being anxious to get the mutation sanctioned in their favour must have visited the office of the Assistant Collector in an anxiety to get sanction the mutation in his favour so that he could become owner of the property after the death of his father. But, non supplying the information qua the aforesaid facts by the accused establish the designs of the accused the fortifies the demand made by him. 19. In any case, the recovery of Rs.2000/- from the pocket of the pant of the accused stands duly established. As per Section 20 of the Act, where it is proved that accused person has accepted for himself or for any other person any gratification, it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved, that he accepted that gratification as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. So, in the light of the fact that the recovery of Rs.2000/- has been effected from the possession of the accused, the presumption unless rebutted by him would be attached to the factum regarding demand and motive. So, in the light of the fact that the recovery of Rs.2000/- has been effected from the possession of the accused, the presumption unless rebutted by him would be attached to the factum regarding demand and motive. 20. In this case, the presumption has not been rebutted in any manner. It would also be pertinent to notice that in this part of the country the valuable land records remain in possession of the petty revenue officials at this grass root level and they being the authors, masters and supervisors of the said records could at any time insert, temper or make misuse of the same for ulterior motives and they on the basis of handling of such records exploit the poor, rural rustic people and make illegal gains from them. 21. Nevertheless, the complainant being a graduate was very vigilant and could resist the demand. He may be graduate but did not know about the tactics of these revenue officers. He was anxious to get the mutation of his father sanctioned in his favour as well as in favour of his brothers. He may be in the impression that without mutation they could not be the owners of the property left by his father. 22. Some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to shake the credibility of the witnesses. Having appreciated their evidence on the touch stone of reliability, credibility and trustworthiness, the minor discrepancies do not in any way effect the substratum of the case and such discrepancies are bound to occur when they appear in the witness box after a long passage of time. The verbatim corroboration could not be expected from the truthful witnesses. The trial court has elaborately discussed the said contradictions. The same do not in any way effect the substratum of the prosecution case and these contradictions and improvements are hardly sufficient to discard their testimonies as a whole. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that since the mutation was being sanctioned in favour of the natural heirs of Kartar Singh, therefore, the question of demand and payment does not arise. 24. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that since the mutation was being sanctioned in favour of the natural heirs of Kartar Singh, therefore, the question of demand and payment does not arise. 24. In this regard, it may be observed that Kartar Singh had a wife Bachan Kaur and daughters and the mutation was registered on the basis of the Will and by way of the said mutation, the wife and the daughters were to be ignored. Though the complainant had also submitted the affidavits of his sister and mother admitting the execution of the Will, yet, he wanted the accused to save him from any undue botheration of putting the Will to trial and get the mutation sanctioned by adopting the cut short method, therefore, it is all the more reason to settle the bargain with the accused. 25. On examination of the sanction order Ex.PC, it transpires that sanctioning authority before issuing the order carefully examined the material produced before it and after considering the circumstances of the case accorded the sanction. No defect has been pointed out so as to hold the sanction order Ex.PC as defective one. 26. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 27. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa is directed to take necessary steps to procure the custody of the accused for serving remaining part of his sentence. —————————