Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1184 (PNJ)

Salinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-08-13

SABINA

body2014
JUDGMENT SABINA, J. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.23 dated 02.04.2003 under Section 7/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'Act'), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Amarjeet Singh approached the appellant for obtaining copy of the jamabandi. In this regard, appellant raised a demand of Rs.700/for doing the needful. The deal was settled at `500/Complainant approached the Vigilance Authorities along with Jasbir Singh. Deputy Superintendent of Police (in short 'DSP'), Vigilance organized a raid on the basis of the complainant moved by complainant Amarjeet Singh. Complainant handed over five currency notes in the denomination of `100/each to the DSP who returned the same to the complainant after application of phenolphthalein powder ('p. powder')Complainant was instructed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. Jasbir Singh was joined as a shadow witness and was instructed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Demonstration of working of p. powder was shown to the witnesses. Joginder Mohan Sharma and Dilbar Singh were joined as official witnesses. Thereafter, the remaining raiding party left for the raid. Complainant and shadow witness entered the office of the appellant. Appellant demanded the bribe money from the complainant. When the complainant replied in the affirmative, appellant took him and shadow witness to the adjoining room. Appellant took the currency notes from the complainant and after placing them in a handkerchief kept the same in the drawer of his table. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in the 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 possession. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the table of the appellant. When the handkerchief in which the tainted currency notes had been wrapped was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the 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 possession. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. When the handkerchief in which the tainted currency notes had been wrapped was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the 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 possession. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), prayed that he was innocent and had pleaded as under: “I am innocent. I never demanded any illegal gratification nor accepted the same. I have already issued jamabandi on 1.4.2003. No recovery was effected from me. The complainant was putting pressure upon me to transfer the property in his name even without the facts coming to the notice of his brother. It is due to this reason he is inimical towards me. So later on complainant in connivance with the vigilance officials falsely involved me in this case.” Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 07.12.2004 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7/13(2) of the Act, Hence, the present appeal by the appellant accused. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, appellant had already issued the jamabandi on 01.04.2003 to the complainant. Therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded the bribe money from the appellant on 02.04.2003. Shadow witness had not supported the prosecution case. No independent witness had been joined at the time of raid. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subash Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 541 wherein it was held that where there was no evidence qua demand of bribe money by the accused, then his conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has next place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Meena Vs. State of Gujarat 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 541 wherein it was held that where there was no evidence qua demand of bribe money by the accused, then his conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has next place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 661, wherein, it was held that in a raid where tainted currency notes were recovered from the table of the accused, then version of the accused that the money was being thrust in her hand while she was pushing it away, and it had fallen on the table and shadow witness had not been examined, then conviction of the accused was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 217, wherein, it was held that prosecution must establish the foundational facts of the case. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013(1) RCR (Criminal) 211, wherein, it was held that where demand and acceptance of bribe money had not been proved, then mere recovery of the bribe money from the accused was not sufficient to order the conviction of the accused. Learned State counsel, on the other hand has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. In the present case complainant while appearing in the witnesses box as PW7 deposed that he had approached the appellant for obtaining copy of the jamabandi. Complainant had raised a demand of Rs.700/from him and ultimately had agreed to receive Rs.500/. He approached the Vigilance Authorities with Jasbir Singh and his statement was recorded by DSP Banarsi Dass. Then he (DSP) handed over five currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/each to the DSP who returned the same to him after application of p. powder. Two official witnesses were joined by the DSP with the raiding party. Working of p.powder was demonstrated to them. Jasbir Singh was deputed 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. Thereafter, raiding party left for the raid. Two official witnesses were joined by the DSP with the raiding party. Working of p.powder was demonstrated to them. Jasbir Singh was deputed 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. Thereafter, raiding party left for the raid. Complainant entered the office of the accused along with Jasbir Singh and asked the appellant as to whether copy of Jamabandi was ready and the appellant replied in the affirmative. Then the appellant took him and Jasbir Singh to another room. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant who held the same with the tip of his fingers and kept them in an handkerchief. Thereafter, the said handkerchief was kept by the appellant in the drawer of the table. Then they came out of the said room and Jasbir Singh gave a signal to the raiding party. On receipt of signal from Jasbir Singh, DSP along with remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. 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 the same was made into a sealed parcel and was taken in possession. The tainted currency notes were taken out by the appellant from the dawer of the table and the same were taken in possession by the DSP. Statement of the complainant on material aspects is duly corroborated by PW5 Chander Mohan, official witnesses and PW6 Dilbag Singh. So far as shadow witness Jasbir Singh is concerned, he did not support the prosecution case. Although, in the present case, the shadow witness has supported the prosecution case, but the prosecution version is duly established from the statement of the complainant, official witnesses and the DSP. The plea taken by the appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not established from record. The case of the appellant was that he had already issued copy of the jamabandi to the complainant on 01.04.2003. In this regard, Ex. MO9 is the copy of the jamabandi in question. A perusal of the same reveals that it was prepared by the appellant on 01.04.2003. A perusal of Ex. P9/E reveals that entry was made qua preparation of the jamabandi on 01.04.2003. In this regard, Ex. MO9 is the copy of the jamabandi in question. A perusal of the same reveals that it was prepared by the appellant on 01.04.2003. A perusal of Ex. P9/E reveals that entry was made qua preparation of the jamabandi on 01.04.2003. The said entry was made by the appellant. However, from Ex. MO9 as well Ex. PW9/E, it cannot be said that the complainant had received the copy of the jamabandi on 01.04.2013. The fact that the copy of the jamabandi was prepared on 01.04.2003 by the appellant and an entry in this regard was made by him in his register does not lead to the inference that the copy had also been supplied to the complainant on 01.04.2003. There is no document on record to establish the fact that the complainant received the copy of the jamabandi in question on 01.04.2003. Hence, the plea taken by the appellant that he had given copy of the jamabandi to the appellant on 01.04.2003 fails to inspire confidence. Since the prosecution had been successful in proving its case, the trial court had rightly held that the appellant was guilty of the charge framed against him. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on different facts. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.