Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3336 (PNJ)

Som Lal v. State of Punjab

2010-12-13

MOHINDER PAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Mohinder Pal, J. - In this appeal, appellant Som Lal has impugned the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 3.10.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalandhar, whereby he was convicted under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was, however, not held guilty by the trial Court under Section 7 of the Act on account of the fact that the accused-appellant had demanded the illegal gratification for the work which had already been done by him and, as such, that act did not fall within the purview of Section 7 of the Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Harbans Singh wanted to make Khasra Girdawari of the land, which was under his cultivation after its purchase in the year 1988-89, in his favour. For this purpose, the complainant had to approach appellant Som Lal, who was posted as Qanungo. The appellant told the complainant when he approached him that he would have to pay Rs. 3000/- to him (appellant) as illegal gratification for that purpose. However, the matter was settled at Rs. 1000/-. 3. As the complainant did not want to pay illegal gratification, he along with Tarlochan Singh, approached the Vigilance Bureau at Jalandhar, contacted Deputy Superintendent of Police Harish Kumar and made statement before him on 31.3.1997 giving details of the bribe demanded by the accused-appellant. A raid was accordingly organized to nab the appellant. The members of the raiding party included complainant Harbans Singh, Tarlochan Singh, who was to act as a shadow witness, Deputy Superintendent of Police Harish Kumar, Kulwant Singh, Panchayat Officer, who was joined in the police party as an independent witness and other police officials. 4. The complainant had produced ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each before the Investigating Officer. Their numbers were noted down. Phenolphthalein powder had been applied to these currency notes and these were handed over to the complainant by instructing him to hand over the same to the accused on his demand. Complainant Harbans Singh and shadow witness Tarlochan Singh, who had been sent to the Tehsil Office, Phillaur ahead of the raiding party, went there. Their numbers were noted down. Phenolphthalein powder had been applied to these currency notes and these were handed over to the complainant by instructing him to hand over the same to the accused on his demand. Complainant Harbans Singh and shadow witness Tarlochan Singh, who had been sent to the Tehsil Office, Phillaur ahead of the raiding party, went there. The accused was found sitting on a bench under the open shed of Nirmal Singh, Deed Writer. The complainant paid Rs. 1000/- to the accused on demand. The accused kept these currency notes in the front pocket of his shirt after counting the same. The shadow witness gave the agreed signal to the raiding party, upon which the police officials swooped upon the accused and caught him red handed. The appellant was made to wash his hands in the war mixed with sodium carbonate and colour of the solution turned pink. On conducting search of the appellant, the tainted currency notes of Rs. 1000/- were recovered from the front pocket of his shirt. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the currency notes, the numbers of which had earlier been noted down. The wash pertaining to the appellant was sealed in the form of parcel and taken into possession by the police. The currency notes were also taken into possession. 5. After completion of investigation challan against the accused-appellant was presented in the Court. 6. Charge under Sections 7/13 of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed a trial. 7. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. 8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He stated that the complainant had asked him to change the entries in the khasra girdwari of the land from 1988-89 and he (appellant) showed his inability to do so as the same had already been incorporated in the Jamabandi and the change could only be done by the Court. On this the complainant got annoyed with him and falsely involved him in this case. He neither demanded nor accepted illegal , ,r tifit44r He further stated that at the time of occurrence, he was present in the Court Compound at Phillaur and the complainant tried to put some money forcibly in his pocket. On this the complainant got annoyed with him and falsely involved him in this case. He neither demanded nor accepted illegal , ,r tifit44r He further stated that at the time of occurrence, he was present in the Court Compound at Phillaur and the complainant tried to put some money forcibly in his pocket. He prevented him from doing so. In the meanwhile, he was apprehended by the police. No money was recovered from his possession. Darshan Lal (D.W.1) was examined by the accused in his defence. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 10. In this case complainant Harbans Singh (P.W. 1) detailed the events regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused, who, at the relevant time was posted as Qanungo. Tarlochan Singh (P.W. 7), who had acted as a shadow witness, and Kulwant Singh, Panchayat Officer (P.W. 2), an independent witness, have corroborated the version given by complainant Harbans Singh (P.W. 1). The testimonies of complainant Harbans Singh (P.W. 1), Kulwant Singh (P.W. 2), Investigating Officer Harish Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W. 4) and shadow witness Tarlochan Singh (P.W. 7) have sufficiently proved the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused. They had no ill will or malice towards the accused so as to falsely implicate him. All these witnesses were subjected to a searching cross- examination by the defence counsel before the learned Special Judge, but nothing could be elicited therefrom which may in any way shatter the prosecution version. No discrepancy worth the name could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in their statements, who have furnished a true and trustworthy account of the whole events. As noticed above, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even the appellant has admitted that a raid had been conducted on the relevant day. He, however, stated that the complainant had tried to forcibly put some money in his pocket, which allegation, keeping in view the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, is not tenable. 11. He, however, stated that the complainant had tried to forcibly put some money in his pocket, which allegation, keeping in view the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, is not tenable. 11. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, clearly show that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, who was a public servant, from the complainant has been clearly established on record by the prosecution by leading the evidence, discussed above. Consequently, the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge is upheld. 12. Regarding the sentence awarded to the appellant, the incident relates to March, 1997. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court on 3.10.2000. At that time, the appellant was about 62 years old. He is present in Court today and appears to be at the fag end of his life. The trial Court did not hold the appellant guilty under Section 7 of the Act. Thus, keeping in view all these facts and the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellant for more than thirteen years, I am of the opinion that it will be of no use to send the appellant to jail again at this stage and the ends of justice will be adequately met with if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year is reduced to the period already undergone (three/four days) he is burdened with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the trial Court. 13. In the case of Sri Krishan Gopal Sharma and another v. Government of N.C.T of Delhi, 1996(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 258, a Division Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, by referring to the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramachandra Dange and Ors., 1964 F.A.C 74 wherein while indicating that in order to prevent unmerited leniency in the matter of awarding sentence for an offence under the Act, the Legislature by amendment has incorporated the provision of minimum sentence, the Constitution Bench further indicated that the Court, for adequate and special reasons, may bring down the minimum sentence, the Division Bench, in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment, observed as under : "14. xx xx xx. xx xx xx. In the special facts of these cases, it appears to us that a deterrent punishment of imprisonment is not called for and imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice. The criminal cases were initiated on the basis of samples taken in 1987. The accused appellants have already faced the ordeal of criminal trials for a number of years. In the aforesaid circumstances, further agony of criminal trials need not be prolonged. Conclusion of the criminal cases will also save time and expenditure of the respondent. 15. In that view of the matter, we direct for quashing the criminal cases in question on payment of costs of Rs. 7500/- in each of these appeals, as in our view, on conviction of the appellants in the criminal cases initiated against them, such fine would have met the end of justice. The appeals are accordingly disposed of." 14. In view of the above, the sentence of rigorous Imprisonment of one year awarded to the appellant under Section 13 (2) of the Act is reduced to the period already undergone by him and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- besides the fine of Rs. 2000/- already imposed by the trial Court. The fine be deposited before the trial Court within two months From the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the appellant fails to deposit the fine within the time, as mentioned above, he shall have to undergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the trial Court. 15. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.