Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1660 (PNJ)

Sardool Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-12-12

SABINA

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for commission of offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) as ordered by the trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 11.9.2004 in FIR No. 25 dated 15.5.2001 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Parminderjit Singh had joined as a clerk in the Government Senior Secondary School, Pakhi Kalan (‘the school’ for short). Complainant was given posting on compassionate ground as his father, who was working as a teacher in the school, had died in January, 1996. Complainant was to receive arrears of pay and in this regard, he had approached the appellant. Appellant was to prepare the bill qua arrears of pay. However, appellant demanded 10% of the arrears of pay from the complainant. Deal was settled at Rs. 8,000/-. Complainant was told to reach the bank on 15.5.2001 to receive the arrears of his pay. Complainant approached the office of Vigilance Bureau along with Gurprit Singh. Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP for short) Mehal Singh recorded the statement of the complainant and on the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered. A raid was organised. Complainant handed over 80 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the DSP, who, in turn, returned the same to the complainant after application of Phenol Phthalein Powder (P-Powder for short). Complainant was directed to hand over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. Gurprit Singh was instructed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Raj Kumar and Naresh Kumar were joined as official witnesses. Demonstration of the working of the P-Powder was shown to the witnesses. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant and the shadow witness went inside the bank. Appellant handed over the arrears of salary to the complainant and thereafter, affixed his signatures on the acquittance roll. Appellant demanded Rs. 8,000/- from the complainant and the same were handed over by the complainant to the appellant. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with remaining raiding party reached the spot. Appellant handed over the arrears of salary to the complainant and thereafter, affixed his signatures on the acquittance roll. Appellant demanded Rs. 8,000/- from the complainant and the same were handed over by the complainant to the appellant. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with remaining raiding party reached the spot. Appellant was apprehended with the tainted currency notes in his hand and the numbers of the same were tallied with the numbers already noted down in the memo and were taken in possession. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in police possession. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined fourteen witnesses. 5. Appellant, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:- “I am innocent. Pay of the complainant was to be withdrawn and disbursed to him by principal Jasbir Singh and the principal had withdrawn the amount and disbursed the same to the complainant under receipt. I had no concern with withdrawal or disbursement of the pay. I did not demand or accept any amount.” Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the arrears of salary of the complainant had been withdrawn by the principal, PW-6 Jasbir Singh from the bank. As per PW-6, the arrears of salary had been paid by the appellant to the complainant in his presence. Thereafter, complainant had affixed his signatures on the acquittance roll and the same had been verified by PW-6 Jasbir Singh. Hence, there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant as the amount in question had been withdrawn by the principal from the bank and was handed over to the complainant by the appellant in the presence of the principal. 7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the appellant had been caught red handed while accepting bribe. 8. 7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the appellant had been caught red handed while accepting bribe. 8. Complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW- 2, has deposed as per the prosecution case. Complainant has deposed that the appellant had demanded Rs. 8,000/- as bribe from him for preparation of the bill qua his arrears of salary. He further deposed that on 15.5.2001, he had gone to the bank with the shadow witness. After the arrears of salary were paid to him by the appellant, appellant had demanded the bribe money and he had handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant. While the appellant was counting the said currency notes, DSP along with the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. He had also deposed that when the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution, the colour of the solution had turned pink. Statement of the complainant is corroborated by PW-3 Gurprit Singh. PW-5 Raj Kumar, official witness, has corroborated the statement of the complainant qua recovery of the tainted currency notes and the fact that the colour of the hand wash of the appellant had turned the solution of sodium carbonate to pink. 9. Although, in the present case, complainant as well as shadow witness and official witness had deposed as per the prosecution case but the prosecution story appears to be doubtful. PW-6 Jasbir Singh deposed that on 14.5.2001, bill qua arrears of salary of the complainant, had been submitted in the treasury office by Karamjit Singh. The bill had been prepared by the appellant. On 15.5.2001, he had gone to the treasury office along with appellant and he had received the cheque in question. After getting the cheque, they had gone to State Bank of India and the cheque was submitted for encashment. He received the token. Complainant also came to the bank. He (witness) then got the payment and handed it over to the appellant so that it could be paid to the complainant. Payment was made by the appellant to the complainant in his presence. Acquittance roll, which had been prepared by the appellant, was signed by the complainant in his presence. He verified the same and affixed his signatures. He (witness) then got the payment and handed it over to the appellant so that it could be paid to the complainant. Payment was made by the appellant to the complainant in his presence. Acquittance roll, which had been prepared by the appellant, was signed by the complainant in his presence. He verified the same and affixed his signatures. In his crossexamination, PW-6 has deposed that the payment was made to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,94,938/- and complainant had signed the acquittance roll after receiving the payment and he (witness) also signed the same in token of his verification at that time. 10. PW-9 Vinod Kumar deposed that on 15.5.2001, cheque was presented for encashment by the school and the payment was received by Jasbir Singh, principal of the school. 11. Thus, in the present case, payment was made by the appellant to the complainant in the presence of the principal of the school. However, complainant has not deposed qua the said fact. In the examination-in-chief, complainant has no where stated that the arrears of salary were paid to him by the appellant in the presence of the principal or that principal had also verified his signatures on the acquittance roll. In his cross-examination, complainant deposed that Jasbir Singh was acting principal on 15.5.2001. The cheque was to be drawn and disbursed to him by the principal. The cheque was received by the principal on 15.5.2001 from the treasury. Acquittance roll was signed by him after receiving the payment. He also admitted that acquittance roll was signed by the principal. 12. Thus, in the present case, it is evident that the money was withdrawn from the bank by PW-6 Jasbir Singh. It was handed over to the complainant by the appellant in the presence of PW-6. Thereafter the complainant had signed the acquittance roll and the acquittance roll had been duly verified by the principal. However, it is not understandable why presence of PW-6 Jasbir Singh has not been specifically stated by the complainant or the shadow witness in their examinations-in-chief. However, in the cross-examination of the complainant, he admitted the presence of the principal at the time of payment of arrears of salary to him. However, it is not understandable why presence of PW-6 Jasbir Singh has not been specifically stated by the complainant or the shadow witness in their examinations-in-chief. However, in the cross-examination of the complainant, he admitted the presence of the principal at the time of payment of arrears of salary to him. In case the money had been paid to the complainant by the appellant in the presence of the principal, then there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded the bribe money from the complainant in the presence of the principal. Further if the complainant had already received his arrears of salary in the presence of the principal, then there was no occasion for him to have paid the bribe money to the appellant as by that time, needful had already been done. 13. Thus, in the present case, prosecution has not come up with the true facts and this renders the prosecution case doubtful. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever there is doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Consequently, the judgment/ order of conviction and sentence dated 11.9.2004 passed by the trial Court are set aside.