Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1204 (PNJ)

Jagbir Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana

2014-08-20

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.04.2008, passed by the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-cum-Additional Sessions Judge (I) Bhiwani, whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- (three thousand) each or in default they shall further undergo R.I. for a period of three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). They were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ore year each and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- (three thousand) or in default they shall further undergo R.I. for a period of three months under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 2.09.2004, accused Dalbir and Jagbir, while posted as driver land TVF respectively in the Haryana Roadways Depot at Bhiwani, had demanded and accepted from the complainant San-jay, an amount of ` 2500/- as illegal gratification for disposing of challan which demand was by way of illegal gratification. 2. The accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses namely Darshan Lal Inspector, Partap Singh Inspector, Mahender, Balwant, Yashwinder Singh, Randhir Singh and Om Parkash, as PW 1 to 7 respectively. 4. After completion of investigation, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they pleaded innocence and claimed that the amount of ` 2500/- in question was in fact on account of composition fee which was assessed by the competent authority by way of composition fee on challan dated 2.09.2004 duly signed by the complainant and General Manager Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani and that Official witnesses are deposing falsely against them. However, in defence, they did not opt to lead any evidence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as noticed in para No. 1 of this judgment. 6. However, in defence, they did not opt to lead any evidence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as noticed in para No. 1 of this judgment. 6. Feeling dis-satisfied by the judgment and order of the trial Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal which was admitted by this Court on 23.04.2008. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the demand and acceptance in the instant case is not proved. The complainant Mahender Singh as well as the shadow witness Balwant Singh have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further contended that the alleged recovery cannot be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The link evidence is missing in the instant case. The amount was paid against the composition fee of challan issued by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani for illegal paying of the vehicle by the complainant and no extra amount which could be said to be illegal gratification was allegedly demanded Dy the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants cites Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) 394 and contended that recovery of tainted money, if any, is immaterial, as it was not a bribe money. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for both the accused, the State counsel and analyzed the evidence with their able assistance. 10. In this case, complainant PW 3 Mohinder and PW 4 shadow witness Balwant have not supported the prosecution case. Now, the question arises as to whether the money recovered from the possession of the accused was a bribe money or not. It is admitted even though he has not supported by PW 3 Mohinder-complainant, that his Marshal jeep No. HR-08C-0324 had been challaned on 2.09.2004 by the traffic staff and that for the disposal of the said challan, he had given ` 2,500/- to the accused. Ex. DB copy of the challan issued by the Traffic Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sub Depot Dadri proves that Marshal Jeep No. HR-08C-0324 was challaned, near Rohtak Gate on 2.09.2014 for carrying five passengers on hire from Bhiwani to Jui without permit or license and for parking the vehicle in 'No Parking Zone'. Ex. DB copy of the challan issued by the Traffic Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sub Depot Dadri proves that Marshal Jeep No. HR-08C-0324 was challaned, near Rohtak Gate on 2.09.2014 for carrying five passengers on hire from Bhiwani to Jui without permit or license and for parking the vehicle in 'No Parking Zone'. The driver of the jeep was required to appear before the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani Depot on 3.09.2004. The complainant himself with his own handwriting wrote complaint Ex. PI as admitted by him. The contents of the complaint Ex. FI, fully supports the prosecution story regarding disposing of the challan. Only an amount of ` 2500/- was imposed upon the complainant for three violations committed by the complainant for the first time against minimum amount of ` 5100/- as composition fee as per rules. There is no time on the receipt Ex. D1/A. It is Clear that this receipt was issued after trap had been raid in order to create defence in favour of the accused. Otherwise, there was no reason or power of the competent authority to impose the composition charges less than the fine prescribed under the rules. The version of the accused that the money so recovered was towards composition fee of the challan is falsified from the admitted fact that the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani, the competent authority to dispose of the challan was not present with the accused, when the amount of ` 2500/- was accepted by both the accused in connivance with each other. The composition fee of the challan was to be assessed by the General Manager; the payment was required to be made to the General Manager against receipt and it is not explained as to how the accused accepted the composition fee before hand. They were not the competent authority to accept the money. It is admitted case of both the accused as well as the prosecution that the complainant in fact had handed over to them an amount of ` 2500/- on 3.09.2004, whereas they had no authority to receive the same at Rohtak Gate, in the absence of the competent authority. 11. From the re-appraisal of entire evidence, this Court feels that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of ` 2500/- do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 12. 11. From the re-appraisal of entire evidence, this Court feels that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of ` 2500/- do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 12. The defence version set up by the accused is improbable and unbelievable. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 4 of the Act. On a close reading of testimony of PW 5 Yashwinder Singh, an independent witness of recovery of tainted money, has given a detailed description of recovery, which is worthy of credence. A feeble attempt is made to connect the recovered amount with the composition fee of the challan, which remains unproved in the absence of testimony of the concerned General Manager, the competent authority to compound the offence. The involvement of both the accused in a well planned and cleverly managed device to systematically collect illegal gratification from the complainant sufficiently established from the evidence of PW 5 Yashwinder Singh and by the defence taken by the accused. Presumption of Section 4(1) of the Act goes against both the accused. In State of U.P. v. Dr. G.K. Ghosh, 1984 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 22, the Apex Court observed that in case of an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even in the trap witnesses turn hostile or found not to be independent - When, besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent, with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction". 13. Keeping in view the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the judgment of conviction is irreversible and no other view is possible. No interference is called for in the well reasoned judgment of the Court below. 14. The last prayer of both the counsel is for taking a lenient view in sentencing the accused, it is contended that the incident is of the year 2004; they lost their Govt. Job and had already suffered sufficiently due to agony of the trial. They pray that they may be released on probation. In the opinion of this Court, they deserve no leniency. Job and had already suffered sufficiently due to agony of the trial. They pray that they may be released on probation. In the opinion of this Court, they deserve no leniency. The corruption in traffic police system is of a considerable size. Traffic violators are allowed to go scott free, by the traffic officials, whereby, they supplement their income with bribe money. In this case, the complainant was plying his jeep for carrying passengers causing great loss to the Govt. exchequer, with the connivance of the accused. When the Manager challaned him, they came to do favour against consideration. In the contemporary times the menace of corruption, which has reached in far nooks and corners, is preventing this country from achieving its destined progress and prosperity. Some Govt. officials are going richer day by day and the Govt. exchequer is not augmenting due to corrupt machinery. At least, those who are caught red handed, should be asked to face the consequences. Neither the law, nor the Courts come to rescue of those who violate the sanctity of law. No leniency should be shown towards a corrupt official. The sentences awarded to the accused is adequate. 15. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed. There is no merit in the appeal, which is, hereby dismissed. Both the accused are directed to surrender to undergo the remaining part of sentence.