Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1283 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh Patwari v. State of Punjab

2014-09-12

ANITA CHAUDHRY

body2014
Anita Chaudhary, J. 1. The appellants Sukhwinder Singh and Gurdial Singh are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.01.2007 by virtue of which they have been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act') respectively, on the ground that appellant Sukhwinder Singh Patwari accepted illegal gratification for entering the mutation and appellant Gurdial Singh abetted in the offence. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 22.12.1998 complainant Surinder Singh and Sukhvir Singh reached the office of Vigilance Bureau Unit Ludhiana and informed DSP Sarup Singh that a civil court decree was passed in favour of Jasvir Kaur, his brother's wife on 06.06.1998. As directed by the Court, the decree was got registered on 27.11.1998. The complainant approached the Patwari for its entry in the revenue record, but mutation was not entered. He met Sukhwinder Singh Patwari, who demanded Rs. 5000/-, but finally agreed to accept Rs. 4000/-. Accused Sukhwinder Singh asked the complainant to give the money either to him or to Gurdial Singh who was then sitting in his office. He was told that Gurdial Singh used to accept bribe money on his behalf. The complainant did not want to pay the amount of the illegal gratification and informed the Vigilance Bureau and made statement Ex.PJ. The complainant produced six currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- each and ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the same. Their numbers were noted. The same were handed over to the complainant for passing it to the accused on the demand. Sukhbir Singh was deputed as the shadow witness. He was directed to overhear the conversation and give the appointed signal when the accused accepted the bribe money. Intimation was sent to the police station Vigilance Bureau for registration of the case. 3. On the way the raiding party associated Vinod Kumar, Senior Assistant from the office of PWD(B&R), Ludhiana as a private witness and was introduced to the complainant and the shadow witness and he was told the purpose of the raid. The complainant and shadow witness had been asked to go to the office of accused on foot. 3. On the way the raiding party associated Vinod Kumar, Senior Assistant from the office of PWD(B&R), Ludhiana as a private witness and was introduced to the complainant and the shadow witness and he was told the purpose of the raid. The complainant and shadow witness had been asked to go to the office of accused on foot. Both of them entered the office of the Patwari, while the other members of the raiding party remained outside. The bribe money was paid to Sukhwinder Singh Patwari, who further passed it on to Gurdial Singh. On receiving the appointed signal from the shadow witness, the raiding party entered the office. On personal search, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of coat worn by Gurdial Singh. The currency notes were checked and they tallied with the numbers noted on the memo. The same were taken into possession. Personal search of the accused was also made. Hand wash of both Gurdial Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were taken and the solution turned pinkish. Likewise, pocket of the coat worn by Gurdial Singh was dipped into the solution, which turned pinkish. Investigations were completed. After obtaining the sanction, the challan was presented and the accused were put to trial. 4. Charge was framed under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 7 of the Act against Sukhwinder Singh and accused Gurdial Singh was charged under Section 9 of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, in which the complainant and shadow witness appeared as PW2 and PW3 respectively, besides Vinod Kumar, the independent witness and PW10 DSP(Retd.) Sarup Singh, the investigating officer. When examined under Section313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded false implication at the instance of one Puran Chand Kainth. However, no evidence was led in defence. 6. On appraisal of the evidence available on record, the trial Court rejected the defence of the appellants and convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellants. 7. I have heard the submissions made by both the sides. 8. The impugned judgment has been assailed by learned Senior counsel for the appellants mainly on the ground that the shadow witness Sukhbir Singh was the real brother of complainant Surinder Singh. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellants. 7. I have heard the submissions made by both the sides. 8. The impugned judgment has been assailed by learned Senior counsel for the appellants mainly on the ground that the shadow witness Sukhbir Singh was the real brother of complainant Surinder Singh. It was urged that this vital fact had been concealed by the prosecution and the investigating officer also avoided the question. The submission was that since he was a partisan witness, his testimony could not be relied upon. To support it, reliance has been placed on Harnek Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 403 and Amrik Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2005(4) RCR(Crl.) 310. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment and referred to the testimonies of PW1 Vinod Kumar, PW2 Surinder Singh, PW3 Sukhbir Singh and PW10 Sarup Singh, DSP(Retd.), the investigating officer. 10. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the statements of PW1 Vinod Kumar, Senior Assistant from the office of Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R), Ludhiana, who was associated in the raid, PW2 Surinder Singh, the complainant, PW3 Sukhbir Singh, the shadow witness and PW10 Sarup Singh, DSP(Retd.), the investigating officer. A perusal of their testimonies reveal that all of them had fully supported the prosecution case. PW2 and PW4 in one voice deposed about the demand of illegal gratification being raised by the appellants for issuing the mutation and the statements of prosecution witnesses, as referred to above, are consistent and reliable. The recovery of bribe money gets support from an independent source as well. 11. The key ingredients, which the prosecution was required to prove were the demand and acceptance. The tenor and manner of deposition of prosecution witnesses, leaves no doubt that a consistent and reliable version had forthcome against the appellants about raising the demand and acceptance thereof. The acceptance of bribe by an accused is undoubtedly the most incriminating factor when judging his guilt and this factor has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses, who are found to be reliable witnesses. The evidence of recovery witnesses speaks volume about the recovery of tainted currency notes from the pocket of Gurdial Singh, henchman of appellant Sukhwinder Singh Patwari. The evidence of recovery witnesses speaks volume about the recovery of tainted currency notes from the pocket of Gurdial Singh, henchman of appellant Sukhwinder Singh Patwari. It has also come in the evidence of witnesses, that the accused Sukhwinder Singh firstly accepted the bribe money and handed it over to accused Gurdial Singh, who put the same in his pocket. Their hand wash also proves that the tainted currency notes were exchanged between them as the solution turned pink. 12. Appellant Gurdial Singh abetted the office in conspiracy with appellant Sukhwinder Singh. Once recovery has been proved, it was for the accused to explain how the same came into their possession, which a short while ago was in possession of the complainant. 13. The argument that the prosecution tried to conceal the relationship between the complainant and the shadow witness Sukhbir Singh cannot be accepted. A perusal of challan as well as the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the parentage of both the persons has been mentioned as sons of Achhara Singh. Same is the position in the list of witnesses annexed with the challan. The prosecution could not have hidden this fact. Further, the complainant Surinder Singh appearing in the witness box had deposed and his opening statement was he along with his brother Sukhbir Singh went to Sukhwinder Singh, Patwari. It cannot be said that the prosecution had tried to conceal the relationship between the two. It is not a case where no independent witness was joined in the raiding party. PW1 Vinod Kumar, Senior Assistant was joined in the raiding party and this witness had proved the recovery of tainted money from the appellants. No ill will or enmity with the complainant has been suggested or proved in the defence. In the light of testimony of this witness, the veracity of evidence of PW2 Surinder Singh and PW3 Sukhbir Singh cannot be doubted only because they are the brothers and closely related to each other. All the witnesses are found to be reliable and have given a consistent version. In this view of matter, the defence cannot take any help from Amrik Singh's case and Harnek Singh's case (supra). 14. It cannot be said that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, especially when cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence is forthcoming to establish the guilt of the accused. In this view of matter, the defence cannot take any help from Amrik Singh's case and Harnek Singh's case (supra). 14. It cannot be said that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, especially when cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence is forthcoming to establish the guilt of the accused. 15. The learned Senior counsel had in the alternate urged that the punishment awarded to the appellants was on the higher side and sought reduction. It has been contended that appellant Sukhwinder Singh has been dismissed from service and had lost all his service benefits. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court no leniency can be shown. Corruption at any level, by any person, of any magnitude is condemnable and cannot be ignored by the Courts. No leniency is required to be shown in proved cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. No popular or sympathetic approach is needed in such cases. In the instant case, the misconduct of the appellants is of such magnitude that no interference is warranted on the quantum of sentence. There exists no mitigating circumstances on account of which the sentence of the appellants can be reduced. 17. For the reasons given above, the appeal merits dismissal. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is affirmed, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds and surety bonds stands cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender before the CJM Ludhiana within 15 days from today to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. In case they fail to surrender before the Court within the stipulated time, the CJM would take appropriate steps in the matter. A copy of this order be sent to the CJM, Ludhiana for compliance.