Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 108 (PNJ)

Ashok Raj Singh Pannu v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-07

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by Ashok Raj Singh Pannu, who at the relevant time, was posted as Depot Manager of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, prtc) at Barnala. In the present case, FIR ex. PF/2 was registered on the basis of complaint Ex. PF made by Jagroop Singh pw-1. Jagroop Singh got recorded his statement before Deputy Superintendent of police, Vigilance Bureau, Sangrur on 27th September, 1994 at 3.15 p. m. In the statement, Jagroop Singh stated that he was posted as a conductor in PRTC and was posted at Barnala Depot since 1973. Due to indisposition, in the month of april, 1994, he could not attend his duty. Thereafter, he had forwarded his leave application for 22nd August, 1994 to 23rd August, 1994. In support of the same, medical certificate was also sent. However, the General Manager, Ashok raj Singh Pannu, present accused, had marked him absent for the period of three days. A show cause notice was also issued to the complainant Jagroop Singh as to why action be not taken against him for remaining absent from the duty and causing monetary loss to the Corporation. In reply thereto, complainant explained that due to illness, he could not attend the duty and sought forgiveness. The complainant approached the general Manager, Ashok Raj Singh Pannu and requested that show cause notice be filed in the records. However, it is stated that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/-, upon which the complainant requested for mercy and finally the accused agreed to do the needful in case payment of Rs.1000/- was made. The complainant sought time to pay the amount on the next day. The complainant discussed the matter with his colleague Sukhwinder Singh, Driver, who told that bribe should not be paid and accompanied him to approach the deputy Superintendent of Police for taking action against the accused. At that time, complainant presented ten notes of Rs.100/- each to the Deputy superintendent of Police. After recording of the statement, necessary proceedings were carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A memo of the currency notes was prepared, in which numbers of the currency notes were depicted and phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes and thereafter, they were handed over to Jagroop Singh with instructions that they are to be handed over to the accused. A memo of the currency notes was prepared, in which numbers of the currency notes were depicted and phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes and thereafter, they were handed over to Jagroop Singh with instructions that they are to be handed over to the accused. Thereafter, water was poured in a glass tumbler and sodium carbonate was stirred in the glass. The colour of the water had not changed. Thereafter, a piece of paper was put in the same and the colour had changed into pink. Other necessary proceedings in consonance with the procedure prescribed were also carried out. Thereafter, police party along with the complainant and shadow witness proceeded to the spot and in the way, they associated Pawan Kumar, Forest Guard, as independent witness. Sukhwinder singh, shadow witness was instructed to stand behind Jagroop Singh in the office of General Manager, PRTC. They were also instructed that when the accused will accept the amount from Jagroop Singh, then the shadow witness will give signal to the raiding party. It was stated that as per the planning, on receipt of the signal, police party, on acceptance of the amount by the accused, went to the office of the accused. At that time, Jagroop Singh told that the currency notes handed over to the accused have been placed by him in the purse. It was further stated that accused had put the purse in the back pocket of his pant. The Deputy superintendent of Police then arranged a glass of water and put sodium carbonate in the water, but the colour of the water did not change. Thereafter, he asked the accused to dip his hands in the said glass of water. The colour of water changed into pink and the same was preserved vide Ex. P-1. Personal search of the accused was carried. Tainted currency notes were recovered and the numbers of the notes were tallied with the memo already prepared. Site plan of the spot Ex. PN was also prepared and the accused was arrested. After grant of sanction Ex. PM by the Chairman of PRTC, report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. P-1. Personal search of the accused was carried. Tainted currency notes were recovered and the numbers of the notes were tallied with the memo already prepared. Site plan of the spot Ex. PN was also prepared and the accused was arrested. After grant of sanction Ex. PM by the Chairman of PRTC, report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. On 9th August, 1995, the Court of Special Judge, Barnala charged the appellant that on 27th September, 1994, in the area of workshop of PRTC, barnala, where appellant was posted as Acting General Manager, being a public servant demanded Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification and accepted bribe of rs.1000/-. Therefore, he had committed offence under Sec.7 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ). On the same facts, he was also charged for offence under Sec.13 (2) of the Act. 2. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined complainant Jagroop Singh as PW-1, shadow witness Sukhwinder Singh as pw-2 and independent witness Pawan Kumar as PW-3. Darshan Kumar, Superintendent of PRTC Patiala, who proved the sanction Ex. PM granted to prosecute the appellant, was examined as PW-4. Ajmer Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, vigilance, who conducted the investigation, appeared as PW-5. ASI Sohan Lal pw-6 tendered his affidavit Ex. PR to prove link evidence. To similar effect, PW-7 Constable Harbans Singh was examined, who tendered his affidavit Ex. PN. Prosecution gave up Manmohan Singh and Gurdev singh, other two persons in whose presence the recovery was effected. It will be necessary to give details of the testimony of the witnesses. PW-1 Jagroop singh stated that in 1993-94, he was posted at PRTC Barnala as Conductor. He became sick on 25th April, 1994 and could not perform his duty. He had sent his medical certificate Ex. PA to the accused, who was then posted as General manager, Barnala Depot. The accused had issued notice Ex. PB calling upon the complainant to reimburse Rs.4746/- on account of loss suffered by the corporation due to absence of the complainant. The notice has been proved and exhibited as Ex. PB. Reply Ex. PC to the notice was sent by the complainant. The alleged show cause notice Ex. PB, when translated, read as under: "recovery notice you Jagroop Singh, Conductor No. S-137, PRTC 3. Barnala Depot is posted in Barnala Depot of PRTC. The notice has been proved and exhibited as Ex. PB. Reply Ex. PC to the notice was sent by the complainant. The alleged show cause notice Ex. PB, when translated, read as under: "recovery notice you Jagroop Singh, Conductor No. S-137, PRTC 3. Barnala Depot is posted in Barnala Depot of PRTC. From 25th April, 1994, you had to perform your duty at 5.40 on route No.47b+221, i. e. Barnala to Bias. But you were not present, due to which this time was missed. The total kilometers missed were 517. Thus due to your absence, the Corporation has suffered a monetary loss of Rs.4746/-. While issuing this notice, you are called upon to answer as to why this amount be not recovered from you. You are further called upon to reply to this notice within three days and the reply should reach the undersigned, otherwise you will be proceeded ex- parte and necessary action shall be taken. Sd/-General Manager, pepsu Road Transport Corporation 11th May, 1994" 4. In the reply Ex. PC, complainant stated that he is replying to the notice within the specified time. On 25th April, 1994, he suddenly became ill and could not report at the duty. He had sent application for leave and had approached the Doctor for medical aid, who had advised three days rest to the complainant. It was further stated that photocopy of the medical certificate is being sent. Therefore, there was no fault of the employee in not attending the duty. The complainant prayed that the notice be decided in his favour. It was further stated that on 21st August, 1994, the appellant applied for leave from 22nd August, 1994 to 23rd August, 1994 vide application Ex. PD. The accused had willfully marked the complainant as absent and had issued another recovery notice Ex. PE for recovery of rs.2574/-. Complainant requested the accused to grant him leave for 25th April, 1994, as he was sick on that day and also prayed for grant of leave for 22nd august, 1994 and 23rd August, 1994, as due to domestic work, complainant could not attend his duty. It was stated that complainant met the accused on 26th september, 1994 at 1.00 p. m. At that time, accused demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe. On the request made by the complainant, the demand was reduced to Rs.1000/-. Complainant promised to approach the accused on the following day. It was stated that complainant met the accused on 26th september, 1994 at 1.00 p. m. At that time, accused demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe. On the request made by the complainant, the demand was reduced to Rs.1000/-. Complainant promised to approach the accused on the following day. On the next day, i. e.27th September, 1994, complainant approached Sukhwinder Singh, president of employees union. Sukhwinder Singh advised the complainant to take the accused to task. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Deputy superintendent of Police. As stated earlier, ten currency notes of Rs.100/-each were gathered and necessary procedure was followed. Complainant accompanied by the shadow witness and independent witness, reached at the office of the accused. At that time, the accused was sitting in his chair. The accused asked the complainant whether he had brought the amount for grant of sanction of leave. Complainant handed over Rs.1000/- to the accused. The accused, after counting the notes, had placed them in his purse and the purse was put in the back pocket of his pant. On the signal given by Sukhwinder Singh shadow witness, police party headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, reached there. The complainant disclosed regarding the acceptance of the bribe. At that time, Manmohan Singh and Gurdev Singh, who were officials of the Depot, were also attracted at the spot. As noticed earlier, the recovery was effected from the accused. Jagroop singh was thoroughly cross examined. He stated that he was not able to remember whether 64 warnings were issued during his service career. He also feigned ignorance whether he was censured. He denied that he was placed under suspension. He admitted that till that day, no order of reduction in salary was passed by any authority. He further admitted that he was Secretary of the union. He agreed that the office of General Manager was situated at 3 km from the bus stand. During cross examination, Jagroop Singh complainant further stated that on 26th September, 1994, he was on the duty on the bus, which was to operate from Barnala to Ahmedgarh and then from Ahmedgarh to Barnala. He reached Barnala at 1.15 p. m. and this bus had to return at 1.55 p. m. It is stated that it was during that interval, he had discussed with the General manager regarding sanction of leave to him. He reached Barnala at 1.15 p. m. and this bus had to return at 1.55 p. m. It is stated that it was during that interval, he had discussed with the General manager regarding sanction of leave to him. He admitted presence of Gurdev singh and Manmohan Singh, officials of PRTC at the time of recovery. Jagroop singh further stated that on 29th September, 1994, there was Punjab Bandh. 5. Sukhwinder Singh, shadow witness appeared as PW-2. He also corroborated the version given by Jagroop Singh. However, in cross examination, he stated that he had joined Indian Army in 1963, left the job in 1967. He admitted that he was convicted and sentenced by the Court of Sessions Judge in a case registered against him under Sec.326 IPC. He further admitted that he was the President of PRTC Employees Union. However, he denied the suggestion that recovery proceedings were also initiated against him for the absence. He denied the suggestion that on 12th september, 1994, he had abused the accused. He also denied the suggestion that he was chargesheeted on 26th September, 1994. According to this witness, he along with the complainant had reached in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur at 2.00 p. m. Pawan Kumar PW-3 deposed regarding recovery of the amount from the purse, which was placed by the accused in the back pocket of his pant. Nothing meaningful was gained by the defence from his cross examination. 6. Pw-4 Ajmer Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police proved various steps taken by him to conclude the investigation. Thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He denied all material aspects of the case and said as under: "i am innocent. I had sold a scooter to Jagroop singh PW and Rs.1500/- remained due from him. Rajwinder Singh carpenter had brought about the sale of the scooter. Jagroop Singh absented from duty and I correctly gave him notice of his absence and a claim of amount. He was warned, censured and suspended several times for his mis-behaviour and he was annoyed with me. Sukhwinder Singh is an army deserted and convict. He abused me and I charge sheeted him several times. He was also suspended warned and censured for his mis-behaviour and he was also annoyed with me. Pawan Kumar PW is their friend and was working in Sehna in those days. Sukhwinder Singh is an army deserted and convict. He abused me and I charge sheeted him several times. He was also suspended warned and censured for his mis-behaviour and he was also annoyed with me. Pawan Kumar PW is their friend and was working in Sehna in those days. Jagroop Singh did not come to me nor I demanded any illegal gratification on 26.9.94. There was a call for Bandh by bus operators for 29.9.94 and I summoned a meeting to ply buses on that day which was attended by Manmohan Singh, Gurdev Singh, Dhanna Singh, Santokh Singh and Harbans Singh. When meeting was going, Jagroop Singh and rajwinder Singh came to me and Jagroop Singh paid rs.1000/- as remaining consideration of scooter. I demanded Rs.500/- more but the persons present asked me not to demand the same as Jagroop Singh is a poor man. I put that money in my pocket. Sukhwinder Singh and Pawan Kumar were not there but were brought later on. I told DSP about the receipt of remaining amount of price of scooter but he told that it is for the Court to decide since case had been registered against me. I moved applications to higher authorities of vigilance department and Addl. Secretary Vigilance conducted enquiry and recorded statements of witnesses and decided the case to be false and wrote for the withdrawal of case since challan had been presented. Deputy Secretary Home moved for withdrawal of the case. " 7. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Prem Sagar Jindal, Superintendent of vigilance Department, Chandigarh, who stated that on application received from the accused, an inquiry was conducted by Joint Director, Vigilance and the report was submitted on 9th December, 1994. A copy of the report was also sent to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab. This witness also identified the signatures of Manmohan Singh and proved copy of inquiry report Ex. D1. DW-2 Rajwinder Singh was examined to prove story of sale of scooter and receipt of balance amount to justify recovery of Rs.1000/- from the accused. According to this witness, Ashok Raj Singh Pannu had sold a scooter through him to Jagroop Singh for Rs.7000/-. D1. DW-2 Rajwinder Singh was examined to prove story of sale of scooter and receipt of balance amount to justify recovery of Rs.1000/- from the accused. According to this witness, Ashok Raj Singh Pannu had sold a scooter through him to Jagroop Singh for Rs.7000/-. The scooter was sold eight years ago and Rs.5000/- were paid to Ashok Raj Singh Pannu at the time of taking possession of the scooter and on the surety given by this witness, Jagroop singh had undertaken to pay the balance amount. It is stated that on 29th september, 1994, there was Punjab Bandh, therefore, salary was released on 27th september, 1994 and on receipt of salary, on the asking of this witness, jagroop Singh had paid Rs.1000/- towards balance amount of sale of scooter. DW-3 Harbans Singh also corroborated the version given by DW-2. He further stated that in his presence, Rs.1000/- were given by Jagroop Singh to the accused and at that time, accused had demanded balance amount of Rs.500/-. DW-4, Surinderjit Singh proved the service record of the complainant Jagroop Singh and stated that complainant joined service in year 1973. Till 6th December, 1994, he was warned 64 times, censured 6 times and had also remained under suspension for 4 times. DW-5 Romesh Kumar proved service record of Sukhwinder Singh shadow witness and he stated that Sukhwinder Singh was warned for 6 times, remained under suspension for 4 times and was censured for 8 times. He further stated that on 12th September, 1994, Sukhwinder Singh was chargesheeted by Ashok Raj Singh Pannu for misbehaving with him. From the version of above evidence, it is evident that demand of illegal gratification was made by the accused on 26th September, 1994 and on 27th September, 1994 jagroop Singh disclosed this fact to Sukhwinder Singh and on that day, FIR was recorded and the recovery was also effected. 8. Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that regarding the fact that on 25th April, 1994 complainant had taken a leave, nothing has been mentioned in the FIR and in statement Ex. PF. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the course of testimony, witnesses made an improvement to this effect. He was duly confronted. 8. Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that regarding the fact that on 25th April, 1994 complainant had taken a leave, nothing has been mentioned in the FIR and in statement Ex. PF. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the course of testimony, witnesses made an improvement to this effect. He was duly confronted. It was asserted that not only the witnesses suffer from blemish of improvement, but also once he was marked absent and recovery was effected, there was no occasion for the appellant to withdraw the same and therefore, the story of demand of Rs.1000/-is a cooked up story. Counsel has submitted that this Court should not loose sight of the fact that the complainant was a Secretary of PRTC Employees Union and Sukhwinder Singh shadow witness was the President of the Union. Therefore, both being Union leaders, in normal course appellant will be hesitant to accept bribe from them. Picking up the thread from this argument, counsel has further stated that there is a contradiction between the statement Ex. PF recorded by the police and the deposition in the court. Counsel has pointed out that in the statement Ex. PF made to the police, witness Jagroop Singh had stated that accused had agreed to file the notice whereas, in the Court it was submitted that leave be granted. Learned counsel has stated that this contradiction is material, as in the charge framed against the appellant, it was specifically stated that accused had accepted Rs.1000/-as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as reward from Jagroop singh for filing notice given to him. Thus, counsel has submitted that deposition of the witness in the Court belies the charge framed against the appellant. 9. Second argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that regarding the demand, there is solitary statement of Jagroop Singh PW-1. Sukhwinder Singh shadow witness has only stated that he had heard Ashok Raj singh Pannu demanding Rs.1000/- and Sukhwinder Singh has not specifically stated that for what purpose Rs.1000/- were demanded. Counsel further submitted that both Jagroop Singh PW-1 and Sukhwinder Singh PW-2 are not reliable witnesses as in the cross examination, they have specifically denied the suggestion given regarding their service career record. Both the witnesses have denied the factum of issuance of warnings, awarding of penalty of censure and suspension. Counsel further submitted that both Jagroop Singh PW-1 and Sukhwinder Singh PW-2 are not reliable witnesses as in the cross examination, they have specifically denied the suggestion given regarding their service career record. Both the witnesses have denied the factum of issuance of warnings, awarding of penalty of censure and suspension. Therefore, these witnesses being false, ought not to be believed regarding the demand made by the accused appellant. 10. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in cross examination, PW-1 Jagroop Singh has admitted that he had purchased one scooter from the accused in year 1990, however denied the suggestion that any balance amount of Rs.1500/- was to be paid. He further submitted that this fact was verified by the senior officials of the vigilance Bureau and as it is evident from the testimony of DW-1 Prem Sagar jindal, that an inquiry was held and the appellant was absolved by Joint director of Vigilance Bureau and a conscious decision was taken by the government to file application before the Court under Sec.321 Cr. P. C. for withdrawal of the case. It is further submitted that in view of the admission made by the accused and inquiry held by the Vigilance Bureau, testimony of DW-2 and DW-3 assumes importance, as they had specifically stated that amount of rs.1000/- was to be paid to the accused as balance consideration for the purchase of scooter. To fortify this submission, it is submitted that by leading defence evidence, accused has explained as to how the amount was accepted and the presumption under section 20 of the Act has not only been repudiated but discharged by the appellant. 11. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG Punjab has submitted that prosecution evidence aspires confidence. The appellant was in official position where he could extend favour to the complainant and therefore, prosecution case has been fully proved. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced. In a case pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act, there are three material ingredients, which prosecution has to prove, i. e. demand of the illegal gratification, acceptance of bribe and recovery of the amount so accepted. In the present case, it is the case of the defence that amount was accepted and the recovery indeed was effected. In a case pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act, there are three material ingredients, which prosecution has to prove, i. e. demand of the illegal gratification, acceptance of bribe and recovery of the amount so accepted. In the present case, it is the case of the defence that amount was accepted and the recovery indeed was effected. However, the appellant, by examining the defence witnesses, has ventured to make this Court believe that the amount accepted and recovered was the balance amount regarding the sale of scooter made by the appellant to the complainant. A stray line in the evidence of the complainant PW-1 that he had purchased the scooter in year 1990, was sought to be exploited by examining two defence witnesses, who were readily available to the appellant. Except the bald/oral assertions, there is no documentary evidence to corroborate this defence version. What was the scooter number on whose name it was registered ? when was it transferred what was the document executed all have not been proved. The accused, who came forward to raise defence, has to prove the same to the hilt. Therefore, two of the ingredients regarding acceptance and recovery of amount are not required to be proved by the prosecution, as there is no denial to the same by the accused. 13. This brings the Court to examine the argument, whether taking into consideration the service record and conduct of the complainant, there was any opportunity for the appellant to demand the amount of bribe or whether he was in position to grant favour to the complainant. Admittedly, the appellant at that time was the Acting General Manager. He issued the show cause notice ex. PB. Reply to the same Ex. PC was submitted by the complainant. The notice was issued in May 1994. Reply was also given within three days, as Ex. PC states that within specified time, reply was given. From May till September, the recovery notice was not decided. It was kept pending. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the accused was in a position to take decision upon the recovery notice and in that context, demand made by the accused seems probable. 14. Therefore, the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount stand proved and prosecution has discharged necessary ounce to prove guilt of the accused. 15. It was kept pending. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the accused was in a position to take decision upon the recovery notice and in that context, demand made by the accused seems probable. 14. Therefore, the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount stand proved and prosecution has discharged necessary ounce to prove guilt of the accused. 15. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.