Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 725 (PNJ)

Harcharan Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab

2009-04-18

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10.08.94, rendered by the Court of Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, Patiala, vide which, it convicted the accused, for the offence punishable under Sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of three months. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Udham Singh, had retired as a Havaldar, from 3 Mountain Regiment w.e.f. 01.09.87. Vide letter dated 07.08.87, he was granted commuted pension of Rs. 35,112/-, and death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 9675/-. His pension w.e.f. 01.09.87, was also fixed, in the month of October. The pension payment order was issued by the Artilliary Records, Nasik Road Camp, in respect of payment of Havaldar Udham Singh. The order dated 07.09.87, was entered into the pension payment order register maintained in the office of the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Sangrur, at Sr. No. 1347. The pension book alongwith they above said intimation was received by Udham Singh, directly. 3. On 24.09.87, Havaldar Udham Singh, visited he office of the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, for getting the payment of commuted pension of Rs. 35,112/- and death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 9675/-. Harcharan Singh Bhalla, accused, was working as Section Officer, in the office of Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Sangrur. He was to deal with the case of Udham Singh, Havaldar. Bansi Lal, Defense Pension Disbursing Officer, had seen the papers brought by Udham Singh, and had made an entry thereon in red ink "1347. Please visit on 26.10.87." Harcharan Singh, accused, demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-, from Havaldar Udham Singh, as gratification, other than legal remuneration, and told him that if he paid the same, the cheque would be issued promptly. The accused further told Udham Singh, that he if he did not pay a sum of Rs. 500/-, he might not get the cheque even on 26.10.87, as a result whereof, he would be losing interest of Rs. 800/-. Havaldar Udham Singh, told him, that it was his hard earned money, by serving in the border hilly areas, and that he could not afford to make any payment of gratification, other than legal remuneration. 500/-, he might not get the cheque even on 26.10.87, as a result whereof, he would be losing interest of Rs. 800/-. Havaldar Udham Singh, told him, that it was his hard earned money, by serving in the border hilly areas, and that he could not afford to make any payment of gratification, other than legal remuneration. Thereafter, Udham Singh, met Capt. Mohinder Singh, in the office of Zila Sanik Board, Sangrur, and told him, with regard to demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 500/- made by the accused, for issuing the cheque. At that time, Lt. Surjit Singh of Zila Sainik Board, was sitting with Capt. Mohinder Singh. Then Capt. Mohinder Singh, took Udham Singh, to the office of Public Grievances Officer, Sangrur, where he (Udham Singh), repeated the facts about the demand of Rs. 500/-, as gratification, other than legal remuneration, by the accused. The Public Grievance Officer, advised Udham Singh, to approach the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sangrur. 4. On 25.09.87, Udham Singh, visited the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sangrur, but he was not available. Udham Singh, sustained a foot injury, while working in his fields. Therefore, he could meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sangrur, only on 29.09.87. On 29.09.87, before going to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sangrur, Udham Singh, again visited the office of the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Sangrur, and met the accused. He requested him to issue the cheque, without any payment of illegal gratification. The accused, however, repeated the demand of Rs. 500/-, as gratification, other than, legal remuneration, for issuing the cheque. Udham Singh, did not want to make the payment of the said amount. As such, he went the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sangrur, where the Vigilance inspector recorded his statement. Nachattar Singh, Welfare Officer, Sangrur, was also called there. In his presence Udham Singh, produced currency notes of Rs. 500/-, the details whereof, were recorded by Teja Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, in a separate memo. Thereafter, demonstration of the powder showing that if something was treated with the same and it (powder) was washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, it would turn into pinkish, was also given to Udham Singh. Thereafter, the currency notes, aforesaid, were treated with phenol-pathelein powder. The same were handed over to Udham Singh. Thereafter, demonstration of the powder showing that if something was treated with the same and it (powder) was washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, it would turn into pinkish, was also given to Udham Singh. Thereafter, the currency notes, aforesaid, were treated with phenol-pathelein powder. The same were handed over to Udham Singh. Thereafter, the Vigilance party left for the office of the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Sangrur, for laying the trap. On the way Joginder Singh, independent witness, was joined with the party. He was introduced to the other members of the party. Joginder Singh, was directed to act as a shadow witness, and accompany Udham Singh, to the office of Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Sangrur. Udham Singh, was asked to pay the aforesaid tainted currency notes, to the accused on demand. Joginder Singh, was asked to give signal by putting both his hands on his turban, while standing near the door of the room, after the amount of gratification, other than legal remuneration, was demanded and accepted by the accused. The other members of the Vigilance party took their position, near the office, by concealing their presence. On demand of gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the aforesaid sum, the same was paid by Udham Singh, to the accused. Thereafter, the requisite signal was given by Joginder Singh, shadow witness, to the remaining members of the Vigilance party, who had concealed their presence, as a result whereof, the said party reached the office of the accused. The accused was caught from his right wrist, by Gurdial Singh, and Karam Singh, members of the party. Teja Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sangrur, disclosed his identity, and asked the accused, as to whether, he had demanded the gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 500/-, from Udham Singh. The accused admitted that he had received the payment of Rs. 500/-, as gratification, other than legal remuneration. He begged pardon. Thereafter, a glass tumbler, containing water was fetched, wherein sodium bicarbonate was put, as a result whereof, the colour thereof, did not change. The hands of they accused were got dipped into it, turn by turn, as a result whereof, the colour of the solution turned into pinkish. The solution was put in a quarter, bottle, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression TS. Thereafter, Teja Singh, offered his search to the witnesses. The hands of they accused were got dipped into it, turn by turn, as a result whereof, the colour of the solution turned into pinkish. The solution was put in a quarter, bottle, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression TS. Thereafter, Teja Singh, offered his search to the witnesses. Thereafter, Teja Singh, searched the person of the accused and found a purse of black colour made of rexin. Out of that, the tainted currency notes of Rs. 500/-, were recovered. Another sum of Rs. 675/-, was also recovered from the said purse. One white pen was also recovered from the person of the accused. The numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers already the mentioned in the memo, and the same tallied. The accused was arrested. Later on, the investigation was taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation. After the completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned. 5. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ramesh Kumar (PW1), Barsati Ram (PW2), Mohinder Singh (P3), Yoginder Kapoor (PW4) (wrongly named as Joginder Singh and numbered as PW5), Surjit Singh (PW5), Vas Dev (PW6), Sat Pal (P7), Bansi Lal (PW8), Gurjand Singh (PW9), Capt. Manjit Singh (PW10), L.S. Rana (PW11), Havaldar Udham Singh, complainant (PW12), Nachhatar Singh (PW13), Karam Chand (PW14), Joginder Singh (PW15), Teja Singh (PW16), Kewal Singh (PW17), and Nirmal Singh (PW18). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed a prosecution evidence. 7. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that the papers of Udham Singh, prosecution witness were never received by him, nor were put up before him. He further stated that he never processed the case of Udham Singh. He further stated that none of the documents, relating to the case of Udham Singh, bore his signatures. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that the papers of Udham Singh, prosecution witness were never received by him, nor were put up before him. He further stated that he never processed the case of Udham Singh. He further stated that none of the documents, relating to the case of Udham Singh, bore his signatures. He further stated that he was not competent to pass the order for disbursement of pension, nor he was competent to do any other work, in that behalf. It was further stated by him, that his duties were of supervisory nature only. He further stated that he was also not competent to change the date given by Sh. Bansi Lal, Defence Pension Disbursing Officer. He further stated that he was falsely implicated, in the instant case, by the Vigilance Department, in order to get the undue credit and to malign the office of the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer. It was further stated by him, that no recovery was effected from him. It was also denied by him that he demanded or accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 500/-, from Udham Singh. He further stated that he was illegally taken to the Police Station, and all the writing work, was done there. The accused examined Karnail Singh, Constable (DW1), Karamjit Singh (DW2), and Baldev Singh, Moharrir Head Constable (DW3), in his defence. Thereafter, the accused, closed the defence evidence. 8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 11. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset submitted that no credible evidence was produced by the prosecution, to prove that the accused demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration in the sum of Rs. 500/-, from Udham Singh, Havaldar, for the purpose of release of his pension and other dues. 11. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset submitted that no credible evidence was produced by the prosecution, to prove that the accused demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration in the sum of Rs. 500/-, from Udham Singh, Havaldar, for the purpose of release of his pension and other dues. He further submitted that the statement of Udham Singh, complainant, PW12, being replete with improvements and contradictions, could not by any stretch of imagination, be said to be reliable and, as such, the trial Court, was wrong, in acting upon the same, to record conviction and award sentence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. From the evidence of Udham Singh, PW12, it was proved that he received the pension documents by post in the second week of September, and then, he went to the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, Sangrur, on 29.09.87, where he was introduced to the accused by Nirmal Singh. According to him, the accused gave him a date as 26.10.87, for release of his commuted pension and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-, as gratification, other than legal remuneration. Since Udham Singh, PW12, did not want to pay the gratification, other than remuneration, in the aforesaid amount, he went to Capt. Mohinder Singh, and told everything to him. Capt. mohinder Singh, took him to Ajaib Singh, Public Grievance Officer, and he gave the affidavit PW1/A to him. No doubt, the affidavit PW1/A, is dated 24.09.87. He clarified in his cross-examination that he met Capt. Mohinder Singh, in the office on 24.09.87, at about 11.00 AM. It was, on that day, that he asked him to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, and submit the affidavit. In pursuance thereof, the affidavit aforesaid dated 24.09.87, was furnished. It was further proved from his statement, that on 29.09.87, he went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance, but before going to his office, he went to the office of the accused and asked him to clear his cheque of pension, but the accused insisted on the payment of gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the aforesaid sum. It was further proved, from his statement, that his statement was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, and he handed over a sum of Rs. It was further proved, from his statement, that his statement was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, and he handed over a sum of Rs. 500/-, to him (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance), who noted down the numbers thereof, in a separate memo, and applied phenol-pathelein power to the same. It was further proved, from his statement, that thereafter the currency notes aforesaid, were handed over to Udham Singh, with a direction to pay the same to the accused on demand. It was also proved from his statement that on the way Joginder Singh, independent witness, was joined, who was appointed as shadow witness. It was also proved that on demand, by the accused of gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 500/- the amount was paid to him, by Udham Singh, Havaldar; that the requisite signal was given by Joginder Singh, to the raiding party, which reached the spot, and apprehended the accused; that the hands of the accused when dipped into a solution, prepared of water mixed with sodium carbonate, turned into pinkish; and that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the purse kept by the accused in his pocket. The statement of Udham Singh, Havaldar, PW12, was duly corroborated by Joginder Singh, shadow fitness, PW15, in all material particulars. Further corroboration to the ocular version was provided through the statement of Nachhatar Singh, PW13, and Teja Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, PW16. Still further corroboration to the ocular evidence was provided through the hand-wash of the accused, as a result whereof, the solution turned into pinkish; and recovery of tainted currency notes from the purse, kept in his pocket, which were a short while ago, with the complainant. Still further corroboration to the ocular version was provided through exhibit PW11/A, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, as on chemical and physical examination of the contents of the quarter bottle, containing the hand-wash of the accused, on the basis of colour test, litmus paper test, PH test, acid test, flame test, and calorimetric test, it was concluded that sodium ions, carbonate ions and phenol-pathelein, were present therein. It was further opined vide this report, that it is the chemical property of phenol-pathelein that it turns colourless solution of sodium carbonate to pink. It was further opined vide this report, that it is the chemical property of phenol-pathelein that it turns colourless solution of sodium carbonate to pink. In Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, (1997(3) RCR 427), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the chemical test is a corroborative piece of evidence. Even no explanation, was furnished by the accused, as to how, the solution, in which his hands were washed, turned into pinkish. Even no explanation was furnished by the accused, as to how, the tainted currency notes of Rs. 500/-, reached in his purse, which were a short while ago, with the complainant. In Roop Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 (SC) 1125, it was held that where the accused was not able to explain the presence of phenol-phthalein powder, on his hands, his conviction, under the relevant Sections was legally sustainable. There was no reason, on the part of Udham Singh, Havaldar, Joginder Singh, independent witness, Nachhatar Singh, and Teja Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, to depose falsely nor they had any ill-will, grudge, or enmity, against the accused, to falsely implicate him, in the present case. Minor discrepancies, contradictions and improvements having occurred, in their statements could not affect the credibility of their evidence. Such like discrepancies, improvements and contradictions, with regard to the dates etc. were bound to occur, in the statements of the truthful witnesses after a lapse of time, as they were examined after about three years of the recovery. The evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, duly corroborated through the circumstantial evidence, referred to above, conforms to the substratum of the prosecution case. If some normal discrepancies, improvements and contradictions, relating to the minor details of the case is occurred in the statements of these witnesses, the same did not at all had any effect on the merits thereof. Normal discrepancies, in evidence, are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, such as shock, and horror, at the time of occurrence, and those are always there, however, honest and truthful, a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those, which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which, a discrepancy may be categorized. Material discrepancies are those, which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which, a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a partys case, material discrepancies do so. In the instant case, as stated above, the discrepancies, in the dates, which occurred, in the statement of Udham Singh, Havaldar, PW12, vis-a-vis his statement, recorded first in point of time, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was, recorded and the affidavit PW1/A, were only on account of lapse of time or error of memory. These were rightly not given any significance, by the trial Court. The trial Court, was thus, right in holding that the ocular evidence, produced by the prosecution, duly corroborated by the other items of circumstantial evidence, was cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy. The trial was thus, right in recording conviction, and awarding sentence. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that it was most improbable that a passer-by, in the name of Joginder Singh, would meet the Vigilance party, on the way, and was appointed as a shadow witness. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in, this regard, does not appear to be correct. The mere fact that Joginder Singh, independent witness, met the Vigilance party, on the way, and was joined, did not mean that his evidence was not credible. Joginder Singh, PW15, supported the prosecution version, in all material particulars. If an independent witness is joined by the Investigating Officer, while on the way, that does not, in any way, go to prove that the evidence of such a witness, could not be said to be credible. No doubt, Joginder Singh, during the course of his cross-examination stated that his statement was not recorded by the Police, on that day, but was recorded on the subsequent day. He also stated that Sukhdev Singh, was not the brother of his wife. However, he (Sukhdev Singh) was cousin of his wife. He further stated that he did not know if he (Sukhdev Singh) was a shadow witness, against one Gurcharan Singh, Section Officer, in Punjab State Electricity Board, in a case, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered by the Vigilance Cell of Sangrur. However, he (Sukhdev Singh) was cousin of his wife. He further stated that he did not know if he (Sukhdev Singh) was a shadow witness, against one Gurcharan Singh, Section Officer, in Punjab State Electricity Board, in a case, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered by the Vigilance Cell of Sangrur. He was also put the suggestion, that he was a stock witness of the Police, but he denied the same. If the cousin of the wife of Joginder Singh, appeared as a shadow witness, against Gurcharan Singh, Section Officer, that did not, in any way, cast any doubt on his testimony. No material was produced, on record, that Joginder Singh, was a stock witness of the Police. In these circumstances, meeting of Joginder Singh, on the way and his appointment, as a shadow witness, by the Investigating Officer, could not be said to be an improbable circumstance, so as to disbelieve the prosecution case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the accused was not competent to sanction the pension, nor the pension papers were to be routed through him, nor the same were put up before him. He further submitted that even the date given as 26.10.87, by the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, could not be changed, and, as such, the accused had no motive, whatsoever, to demand and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The accused was Section Officer, in the aforesaid office, at the relevant time. All the pension papers and other papers of the army personnel, who had retired from the army, or discharged from army, were to be routed through the Section Officer, before the same were put up before the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer. He could, therefore, delay the disbursement of pension, to the complainant, by not putting up the papers before the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer. He, therefore, had a motive, and, thus, he demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration. He could, therefore, delay the disbursement of pension, to the complainant, by not putting up the papers before the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer. He, therefore, had a motive, and, thus, he demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration. Even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that it was the Defence Pension Disbursing Officer, who was to issue the cheque to Udham Singh, but the accused demanded and accepted gratification other than legal remuneration, though for a work, which did not fall within the purview of the discharge of his duties, still the offence, punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was constituted. In Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. The Delhi Administration, 1962(1) Crl.L.J., 203 (SC), a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, held that the legislature advisedly widened the scope of the crime by giving a very wide definition in Section 5, with a view to punish those who holding public office and taking advantage of their official position, obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The necessary ingredient of an offence under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code, is the clause "as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any public servant", but it need not be there in order to bring an offence under Section 5 of the Act home to the accused. The offence, under this Section, is, thus, wider and not narrower, than the offence of bribery as defined in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The words "in the discharge of his duty" do not constitute an essential ingredient of the offence." In S.V. Abdul Sattar Shah v. Superintendent of Police. CBI/SPE Cochin, 1987 Crl. L.J. 1670, where the accused was a Superintendent of Central Excise. He received money for securing jobs in some particular industrial establishment, but had been transferred, at the relevant time, to another range, it was held that the act amounted to criminal mis-conduct. CBI/SPE Cochin, 1987 Crl. L.J. 1670, where the accused was a Superintendent of Central Excise. He received money for securing jobs in some particular industrial establishment, but had been transferred, at the relevant time, to another range, it was held that the act amounted to criminal mis-conduct. Similarly in Ramesh v. The State, 1986 Crl L.J. 1101, it was held that acceptance of money need not be for doing something connected with the official duty. In Mahesh Parshad v. State, 1955 S.C.J. 153, the Apex Court, held that a public servant, who receives illegal gratification, as a motive, for doing or procuring an official act, would be guilty under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code, whether, he was capable of doing it, or whether or not he intended to do it. Section 161 Indian Penal Code does not require that the public servant, should be competent to do an official act. In State of Punjab v. Raj Kumar, AIR 1988 (SC) 805, it was held that if bribe is taken, and given as a motive or reward, for doing or forebearing to do an official act, the offence is complete, whether the public servant has the requisite capacity to do it, or not. Whether the accused had the capacity to do the work or not hardly mattered. Once he demanded and accepted gratification, other than legal remuneration, in the sum of Rs. 500/-, from the complainant, by representing him, that the cheque of his pension shall be issued promptly, the offence was complete. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the sanction was accorded, in this case, without application of mind by the competent authority, and, as such, was invalid. He further submitted that the that the trial Court, failed to take into consideration this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error in recording conviction and awarding sentence. The submission the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, also does not appear to be correct. Exhibit PW4/A, is the sanction order. The sanction was accorded by the Controller of Defence Accounts (PD), on 17.12.87. The submission the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, also does not appear to be correct. Exhibit PW4/A, is the sanction order. The sanction was accorded by the Controller of Defence Accounts (PD), on 17.12.87. It is evident from the perusal of the sanction order, that the material, which was placed before the competent authority, with regard to the allegations and circumstances of the case was considered by it. After duly considering the said record, the competent authority came to the conclusion that it was a fit case, in which, Harcharan Singh Bhalla, accused, should be prosecuted, for the offences, punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Yoginder Kapur, Personal Assistant to the Controller of Defence Accounts, Delhi (the competent authority), PW4, stated that he was working as Personal Assistant to Mr. B.C. Joshi, Controller of Defence Accounts Pension Disbursement, Delhi, in December, 1987. He further stated that the papers alongwith documents etc. concerning this case, were received from the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, for according sanction, to prosecute Harcharan Singh Bhalla, accused. The said papers were routed through him and he had placed the whole record before Mr. B.C. Joshi. He (Mr. B.C. Joshi) after going through the whole record, examining the same, and also applying his mind to the same, accorded sanction. He identified the signatures of Mr. B.C. Joshi, on the sanction order PW4/A. The perusal of the sanction order coupled with the evidence of Yoginder Kapoor, clearly goes to show that the entire record relating to the accused was duly considered by the competent authority, and after recording his satisfaction, that it was a fit case, in which, sanction should be accorded, that the same was accorded. It therefore, could not be said, that there was no application of mind to the documents and the records, which were produced before the competent authority by his Personal Assistant, relating to this case. In Shiv Raj Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1419. It therefore, could not be said, that there was no application of mind to the documents and the records, which were produced before the competent authority by his Personal Assistant, relating to this case. In Shiv Raj Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1419. it was held that where the order of sanction shows, on the face of it, what were the facts, constituting the offence charged, against the accused, and the order further recites that the sanctioning authority after fully and carefully examining the material before it, in regard to the aforesaid allegations, in the case, considers that a prima facie case is made out, against the accused, the order fulfills the requirements of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The principle of law, laid down, in Shiv Raj Singhs case (supra), is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. The sanction, in this case, is, thus, legal and valid. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. The Counsel for the appellant, however, by placing reliance on Major Som Nath v. Union of India and another, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1910, submitted that the documents, the material, and the facts, which were presented before the competent authority were not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the accused prima-facie committed the offences punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and, as such, the sanction was invalid. Here too, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, deserves to be rejected. As stated above, the perusal of the sanction order coupled with the statement of Yoginder Kapoor, PW4, clearly goes to show, that the file, which was sent by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, was presented before the competent authority. The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, was that the accused had accepted bribe of Rs. 500/-, from a pensioner, and, thus, there was sufficient material for launching prosecution against him. The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh, was that the accused had accepted bribe of Rs. 500/-, from a pensioner, and, thus, there was sufficient material for launching prosecution against him. The competent authority further recorded the satisfaction that after going through the record, it came to the conclusion, that the acts of the accused constituted the offence, punishable under Sections 161 and 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was after scrutiny of the entire record, produced before the competent authority, that it accorded sanction, for launching prosecution, against the accused, for the aforesaid offences. It, therefore, could not be said that sufficient record or material was not produced before the competent authority, before it accorded sanction for launching prosecution, against the accused, for the aforesaid offences. It, therefore, could not be said that sufficient record or material was not produced before the competent authority, before it accorded sanction for launching prosecution, against the accused. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from Major Som Naths case (supra). The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 16. The Counsel for the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation, submitted that statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, could be raised, against the accused, as the tainted currency notes were recovered, from the purse of the accused. He further submitted that once the tainted currency notes were recovered from the purse of the accused, it was for him, to explain, as to how, the same came into his possession, which were a short while ago, in the possession of the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation, in this regard, appears to be correct. The submission of the Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation, in this regard, appears to be correct. In Tarlok Chand Jain v. State of Delhi, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 666, a case, relating to Section 5(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the question, with regard to the interpretation and scope of Section 4 (1) arose before the Apex Court, wherein, it was held as under :- "The degree and the character of the burden of proof which Section 4(1) casts on an accused person, to rebut the presumption raised thereunder, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof, which under Section 101, Evidence Act, rests on the prosecution. While the mere plausibility of an explanation, given by the accused in his examination under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code, may not be enough, the burden on him to negate the presumption may stand discharged if the effect of the material brought, on the record, in its totality, render the existence of the fact presumed improbable. In other words, the accused may rebut the presumption, by showing a mere preponderance of probability, in his favour; it is not necessary for him to establish his case, beyond a reasonable doubt. AIR 197 S.C. 773, followed. The sole purpose of the presumption under Section 4(1) is to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving a fact which is essential ingredient of the offences, under Section 5(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Penal Code. The presumption, therefore, can be used in furtherance of the prosecution case and not in derogation of it. If the story set up by the prosecution inherently militates against or is inconsistent with the fact presumed, the presumption will be rendered sterile from its very inception, if out of judicial Court esy, it cannot be rejected out of hand as still-born " The plain reading of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, reveals that the accused can rebut such presumption, by leading evidence, or from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is, no doubt, not necessary for him, to establish his case, to rebut such statutory presumption, operating against him, under Section 4(1) of the Act, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is, no doubt, not necessary for him, to establish his case, to rebut such statutory presumption, operating against him, under Section 4(1) of the Act, beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the accused tried to furnish an explanation, in his statement under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure, to the effect that he was not competent to do the work and there was no motive for him, either to demand or accept gratification, other than legal remuneration. He further stated that no recovery of tainted currency notes, was effected, from him but he was falsely involved, in this case. He also took up the stand, that no papers were prepared, in the office by the Vigilance party, and he was illegally taken to the Police Station. He also examined Karnail Singh, Constable, DW1, who stated that there was no entry dated 29.09.87, regarding the registration of the case. He also stated that there was no entry in the Roznamcha even on the subsequent date regarding the deposit of case property of the case. He also stated that there was no entry with regard to the handing over of the case property to the Central Bureau of Investigation. During the course of cross-examination, it was admitted by him, that in the Roznamcha, no entry regarding the registration of any case, was made, and only entry with regard to the departure and arrival of the officials in the Police Station was made. He further stated that he did not know, as to whether, Malkhana Register is maintained in the Police Station, regarding the deposit of the case property, and taking of the same for production before any authority. He further stated that he did not know, as to whether, there was any register regarding the registration of cases or deposit of case property. He further stated that he did not know, if any, entry was made, in this regard, in those registers. However, Baldev Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, DW3, produced the relevant registers, and deposed that the entry with regard to the registration of the case, and deposit of the case property was made. He also stated, during the course of cross-examination that there was also an entry regarding the detention of the accused in the lock up. However, Baldev Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, DW3, produced the relevant registers, and deposed that the entry with regard to the registration of the case, and deposit of the case property was made. He also stated, during the course of cross-examination that there was also an entry regarding the detention of the accused in the lock up. He also stated that in register No. 19, the entry with regard to the deposit of case property was also made. He also stated that there was another entry dated 06.10.87, regarding the sending of hand-wash to the Chemical Examiner. He also stated, during the course of cross-examination, that the case property was sent to the Central Bureau of Investigation, through road certificate. The defence evidence produced by the accused, therefore, belied the explanation given by him, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No evidence, was produced, by the accused, to prove and substantiate the explanation, furnished by him, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statutory presumption, therefore, remained unrebutted. The unrebutted statutory presumption further strengthened the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. 17. Last of all, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that, on account of the registration of the case, the appellant has already lost his job. He further submitted that the appellant has been facing the mental agony and physical pain of protracted criminal proceedings since 29.09.87 i.e. for the last more than 21 years. He further submitted that the sentence awarded to the accused be rendered to the period already undergone. He also placed reliance on Ram Saran v. State of Punjab. 2005(1) RCR(Crl) 784, Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR(Crl.) 17. decided by the single benches of this Court, in support of his contention. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The trial Court, in my opinion, took a very lenient view, in awarding sentence to the accused. A corrupt official, is a menace to the society, and far from helping, in the proper functioning of the government and implementing the laws, brings the society at large into disrepute. It is through the agency of the public servants, that the policies of the legislature, as well as of the government are implemented. A corrupt official, is a menace to the society, and far from helping, in the proper functioning of the government and implementing the laws, brings the society at large into disrepute. It is through the agency of the public servants, that the policies of the legislature, as well as of the government are implemented. It is through the public servants that crimes are detected and the offenders are brought to book. It is through the public servants that the welfare of the society can be a ensured. If such public servants, indulge into corruption and coerce the public into paying them illegal gratification, the whole structure of the society would be destroyed and the policies of the government and of the legislature, howsoever, the beneficial they may be, would gravely suffer. A public servant, therefore, once found to be guilty of accepting illegal gratification, deserves no soft corner or indulgence from the Court of law. In Seveka Perumal etc v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1463, it was held that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence, would do more harm to the justice system, to undermine the public confidence, in the efficacy of law, and the society could no longer endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court, to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of offence, and the manner, in which, it was executed or committed. In the instant case, the accused, in the capacity of a public servant, committed a very heinous offence. Corruption has affected all walks of life. No legal work of a person, is expected to be done, in any office, without greasing the palms of the concerned official, though there may be some exceptions. Under these circumstances, to show undue sympathy, to the appellant, in the matter of sentence by reducing the same, to the period already undergone (which may be a few days or a few months), would amount to the mockery and travesty of justice. Such an approach may also send wrong signals, to the society, that a corrupt official, who indulges into corrupt practices, if caught hold red-handed may not, in the first instance, be convicted, and if convicted, will be let off, with a very lenient sentence, thereby again enabling him to indulge into such practices. The appellant has been on bail. Such an approach may also send wrong signals, to the society, that a corrupt official, who indulges into corrupt practices, if caught hold red-handed may not, in the first instance, be convicted, and if convicted, will be let off, with a very lenient sentence, thereby again enabling him to indulge into such practices. The appellant has been on bail. The mere fact that the criminal proceedings lingered on for about 21 years, in itself, could not be said to be a sufficient ground, to reduce the sentence, awarded to the accused (now appellant) by the trial Court. Ram Sarahs and Om Parkashs cases (supra), were decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing therein. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom. No ground, is made out, for the reduction of sentence awarded by the trial Court. 18. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 19. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not merit any interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 20. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 21. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of e Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within two months. 22. The District & Sessions Judge, Patiala, is also directed to ensure that the directions, referred to above, are complied with, and the compliance report is sent within the time frame, to this Court. 23. The Registry is directed to keep track that the directions are complied with, within the stipulated time. The papers be put up within 10 days, of the expiry of the time frame, whether the report is received or not, for further action. Appeal dismissed.