-1- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. Date of Decision: April 06, 2010. R.C. Kamal ...Appellant VERSUS State (Central Bureau of Investigation), Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this appeal, appellant R.C.Kamal has impugned the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 16.12.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of -2- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. Investigation (for short `C.B.I'), Punjab, Patiala, whereby he was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, on each count. However, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. It may be mentioned here that, originally, the instant case was registered at Vigilance Bureau, Punjab. However, since the accused-appellant was an employee of the Telecom Department, Jalandhar, a Department under the Central Government, the investigation of this case was subsequently taken up by the C.B.I, Chandigarh. The appellant, at the relevant time, was posted as J.T.O, Telephone Exchange, Kapurthala. Complainant Arvinderpal Singh, who had deposited Rs.10,000/- in the main post office, Kapurthala, vide receipt No.789 dated 6.3.1998 for installation of a new telephone connection at his residence, met the appellant on 20.3.1998 for the purpose. The appellant told the complainant that he would get the new telephone installed at his residence within a month. The complainant met the appellant a number of times for the purpose, but to no effect. On 9.7.1998, the complainant met the appellant again when he (appellant) told him that he would get the telephone installed at the residence of -3- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. the complainant on receipt of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification. After negotiations, the amount was settled at Rs.300/-. The complainant, on the pretext of arranging the money, went back to his house with the promise to the complainant that he would bring the same from his house. As the complainant did not want to pay illegal gratification to the accused-appellant, he along with Prabh Dayal Singh, who had advised the complainant to get the corrupt employee like the appellant nabbed from the Vigilance Department, went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Kapurthala and told him the entire story. Statement of the complainant was recorded which was signed by him and attested by Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaipal Singh. The complainant handed over three currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A raid was accordingly organized to nab the appellant. The members of the raiding party, besides Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaipal Singh and the officials of the Vigilance Department, included complainant Arvinderpal Singh, Tribhuwan Kumar, Sub Divisional Clerk and Prabh Dayal Singh, who was to act as a shadow witness. The complainant, as mentioned above, had produced three currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each. Their numbers were noted down. Phenolphthalein powder had been -4- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. applied to these currency notes and these were handed over to the complainant by instructing him to hand over these currency notes to the accused on his demand. The raiding party reached the office of the accused- appellant. The complainant and the shadow witness were directed to go ahead to meet the accused. The Deputy Superintendent of Police along with other members of the trap party kept on waiting near the office of the accused in a concealed manner. After some time, shadow witness Prabh Dayal Singh gave the appointed signal to the trap party and the Deputy Superintendent of Police raided the office of the accused. The accused was sitting on the chair in his office. The Deputy Superintendent of Police disclosed his identity to the accused and asked him to keep his hands raising. The appellant was, thereafter, made to wash his hands in the water mixed with sodium carbonate and colour of the solution turned pink. The wash pertaining to the appellant was sealed in the form of parcel. The currency notes were taken into possession. The three tainted currency notes were recovered from the diary which was lying on the table of the accused and this fact had been told by the complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police that after receiving the currency notes, the accused had put those notes in his diary lying on the table. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the currency notes, the numbers of which had earlier been noted down. The currency notes and the diary were taken into possession by the police. -5- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. On receipt of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation, the case was transferred to the C.B.I and S.S.Guram, Inspector C.B.I conducted further investigation. Sanction for prosecution of the accused was obtained from the competent authority. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused-appellant was presented in the Court. Charge under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined complainant Arvinderpal Singh (P.W.1), Prabh Dayal Singh (P.W.2), Tribhuwan Kumar (P.W.3), H.P.S. Sandhu (P.W.4), Surjit Singh (P.W.5), H.S. Virdi (P.W.6), Tarsem Lal Sidhu (P.W.7), Daljit Singh (P.W.8), Inspector S.S. Guram (P.W.9) and Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaipal Singh (P.W.10). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He took up the plea that area of Tejpur did not fall within his jurisdiction as it was under the jurisdiction of H.S. Virdi, who exclusively dealt with it. There was neither any occasion for him to demand any bribe nor to accept the same. He further stated that on 10.7.1998, he was summoned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Kapurthala, through his officer and on reaching there, he -6- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. was detained and this false case was foisted on him. When he was summoned in the Vigilance Office, Raj Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Parshotam Lal, officials of the Telephone Exchange were also present there. In his defence, the accused-appellant examined Vijay Kumar (D.W.1), Raj Kumar (D.W.2), Vijay Kumar, Clerk with Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate, Kapurthala (P.W.3), Mr.R.K. Anand, Advocate (D.W.4) and Dr. A.K. Singla, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert ( D.W.5). I have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State of Punjab and Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and have gone through the records of the case. Complainant Arvinderpal Singh, who intended to get installed a new telephone connection in his residence,had completed the due formalities of depositing Rs.10,000/- in the main post office, Kapurthala, vide receipt No.789 dated 6.3.1998. He had met the appellant a number of times for doing the needful. The appellant, at the relevant time, was posted as J.T.O, Telephone Exchange, Kapurthala. However, the appellant kept on postponing the matter. On 9.7.1998, the complainant met the appellant again. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for installing telephone at the residence of the complainant. After negotiations, -7- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. the matter was settled at Rs.300/-. The complainant did not want to pay illegal gratification to the accused. So, accompanied by Prabh Dayal Singh, who had advised the complainant to get the corrupt employee like the appellant nabbed from the Vigilance Department, went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Kapurthala and narrated the entire story to him. The complainant handed over three currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A raid was accordingly organized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaipal Singh, which included officials of the Vigilance Department, complainant Arvinderpal Singh, Tribhuwan Kumar, Sub Divisional Clerk and Prabh Dayal Singh, who was to act as a shadow witness. The complainant and the shadow witness, as was directed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, went to meet the accused. The Deputy Superintendent of Police in the company of other members of the trap party kept on waiting for the signal of the shadow witness. When, after some time, shadow witness Prabh Dayal gave the appointed signal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police raided the office of the accused. At that time, the accused-appellant was found sitting on a chair in his office. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, after disclosing his identity to the accused, asked him to keep his hands raising. Thereafter, the appellant was made to wash his hands in the water mixed with sodium carbonate and colour of the solution turned pink. The wash pertaining to -8- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. the appellant was sealed in the form of parcel. The three tainted currency notes were recovered from the diary which was lying on the table of the accused. The fact that after receiving the bribe money, the appellant had kept the same in the diary, was disclosed by the complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The numbers of the currency notes were found tallying with the currency notes, the numbers of which had earlier been noted down. The currency notes along with the diary were taken into possession by the police. The prosecution witnesses, mentioned above, namely Arvrinderpal Singh complainant (P.W.1), shadow witness Prabh Dayal Singh (P.W.2) and Tribhuwan Kumar (P.W.3), an official witness who had witnessed the recovery, have supported each other on all material particulars. The accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe. The appellant had a motive to accept the bribe as the complainant wanted to get installed a new telephone at his residence through the appellant. The main defence of the appellant is that the area where the residence of the complainant is situated was not within his jurisdiction and, therefore, he had no motive to accept bribe from the complainant. Without going into any detail on this issue raised by the appellant, suffice to say that Tarsem Lal Sidhu (P.W.7), who was Sub Divisional Officer (Telephones), Kapurthala, at the relevant time, categorically deposed that the accused-appellant was the overall incharge for the installation of new telephone -9- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. connections at that time. This statement of the official witness, namely, Tarsem Lal Sidhu (P.W.7), Sub Divisional Officer (Telephones), Kapurthala, completely negatives the defence taken by the accused-appellant. There was no enmity of the complainant with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in such a case. There was also no reason for the official witnesses to depose falsely against the appellant. The act and conduct of the appellant had forced the complainant to approach the Vigilance Department. The case of the prosecution against the accused- appellant stands proved from the cogent and convincing evidence led by the prosecution. The accused-appellant did not dispute his posting at Kapurthala. The sanction granted by the competent authority for the prosecution of the accused, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning be said to have been issued without proper application of mind. Under these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant had not only the opportunity but also the motive to demand and accept the bribe. No straight jacket formula can be laid as to how and in what circumstances the demand is proved. The mind of the person demanding bribe cannot be peeped into. The prosecution is to prove its case by leading positive evidence, which has been done by it in the instant case, as discussed above. The evidence led by the prosecution proves in certain terms that the appellant had demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant, patently for showing favour to him in the matter of installation of new -10- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. telephone connection at his (complainants) residence. In view of the above, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence relates to March, 1998 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellant for more than twelve years, some leniency is required to be shown in the matter of sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years awarded to appellant on each count under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. The sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court on the appellant for the aforesaid offences and the default clause shall, however, remain unaltered. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The impugned sentence order is modified accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. April 06, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE