IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 Date of Decision : October 07, 2010 Satnam Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. Vide judgment and order dated 6.8.2001 passed by Special Judge, Jalandhar, the appellant was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Hence, the appeal. According to the prosecution, on 6.8.1999, complainant Resham Singh met the appellant, who was Halqa Patwari of village Mehmadpur and requested him to supply the copy of mutation of land measuring 9 kanals 3 Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -2- marlas, which land had been transferred by his paternal uncle Pritam Singh during his lifetime to him as his uncle was having no issue. The appellant replied that he had got the land of his paternal uncle without any sale consideration and that the copies were not being supplied without the bribe and he demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification. On repeated requests made by the complainant, the appellant agreed to reduce the amount of illegal gratification to Rs.2,000/-. The complainant told the appellant that he would arrange the money on 9.8.1999. The appellant told him that after arranging the money, he should come to his residential house situated in the fields of village Kheewa. On 9.8.1999, the complainant accompanied by Karamjit Singh met Amrik Singh, DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar and made statement Ex.PF. The complainant produced four currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each before the DSP, who smeared the same with phenolphthalein powder and handed them to the complainant with the direction that he should hand over those currency notes to the appellant only on demand and should not shake hands with him. The DSP gave demonstration to both of them as to how the colour of solution of sodium carbonate would turn pink after coming into contact with the said powder. The number of the currency notes were noted down by the DSP and regarding the entrustment of those currency notes and demonstration, he prepared memo. Ex.PG. Karamjit Singh was directed to give a signal to the raiding party after the acceptance of currency notes by the appellant. Phulbir Kumar, M.P.W. from the office of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar was Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -3- joined in the raiding party as an independent official witness. The DSP after making endorsement Ex.PF/1 on the statement Ex.PF sent the same to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PF/2 was registered against the appellant. Thereafter, the raiding party started for the residential house of the appellant. The complainant and the shadow witness entered the house of the appellant and occupied the chairs lying in front of the table. Thereafter, the appellant asked the complainant if he had fulfilled his promise and the complainant replied that he had brought Rs.2,000/- with him. The appellant after preparing and signing the copy of the mutation asked the complainant to hand over the bribe money of Rs.2,000/- to him. Accordingly, the complainant gave currency notes to the appellant, who after counting the same put them in the front pocket of his shirt. The shadow witness came out and gave requisite signal to the raiding party upon which the DSP accompanied by the raiding party entered the residential room of the appellant and caught hold of him while he was sitting on his chair. The appellant was secured and both his hands were dipped in a clear solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of which turned pink. The solution was put in a nip, which was sealed by the DSP with his seal ‘DS’ and was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PH. Four currency notes of Rs.500/- each were recovered from the front pocket of the shirt of the appellant. The numbers of those currency notes were compared and tallied. The currency notes were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PJ. When the pocket of the shirt of the appellant was washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour thereof turned pink and the Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -4- same was put in a nip. The nip as well as the shirt were converted into parcels, which were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PK. The personal search of the appellant led to recovery of one purse containing his identity card and Rs.185/-, which were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PO. Copy of Jamabandi was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PL. The DSP prepared the rough site plan Ex.PQ of the place of recovery. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, the trial Court charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Suresh Kumar, Bill Clerk, PW2 Rajwant Kumar, DSP PW3 Mohinder Kumar, Bill Clerk, PW4 Surjit Ram, Kanungo, PW5 Constable Varinder Kumar, PW6 Resham Singh, PW7 Karamjit Singh, PW8 Phulbir Kumar, MPW, PW9 Constable Daljinderjit Singh and PW10 DSP Amrik Singh. Report Ex.PR of Forensic Science Laboratory was tendered in evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded his innocence. He stated that he never demanded any money from Resham Singh nor any such money was given to him and the same was foisted upon him by the DSP in connivance with Resham Singh. That witness Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -5- claimed award being given by the Punjab Government in corruption cases. The appellant was brought from his house in the presence of Darshan Singh and Gurdial Singh and was falsely implicated in this case. In his defence, the appellant examined DW1 Gurdial Singh and DW2 Darshan Singh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, scanned the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Karamjit Singh, who was deputed as a shadow witness by DSP Amrik Singh to oversee the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant did not support the prosecution case. There is, thus, no corroboration to the fact that it was the appellant, who had demanded the bribe or accepted the same. While appearing as PW7, Karamjit Singh deposed that he did not accompany the complainant to the house of the appellant. As he failed to support the case of the prosecution, a request was made by the Additional Public Prosecutor to allow him to put leading questions after Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -6- getting him declared as hostile. During his cross- examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he was confronted with his statement recorded during the investigation. However, he admitted the fact that the bribe money was recovered from the possession of the appellant and also the colour of the solution of sodium carbonate turning pink as a result of hand wash and the pocket wash. Similarly, because the witness did not corroborate the prosecution version of demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant it is not sufficient to hold that the testimony of complainant Resham Singh, who appeared before the trial Court as PW6, cannot be relied upon so as to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Even otherwise, once PW7 Karamjit Singh admitted before the trial Court that the tainted money was recovered from the possession of the appellant and the hand wash as well as the pocket wash being positive, it cannot be said that the appellant had neither demanded any bribe nor received the same from PW6 Resham Singh. Apparently, an attempt has been made by PW7 Karamjit Singh to help out the appellant by testifying that he had not accompanied PW6 Resham Singh to the house of the appellant nor witnessed the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant from said Resham Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the statement made by the various witnesses examined by the prosecution are full of discrepancies. While according to PW8 Phulbir Kumar, Darshan Singh and Gurdial Singh were present at the spot when the raiding Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -7- party reached there but, according to other witnesses, those persons were not present. Further, according to PW8 Phulbir Kumar, the signatures of Darshan Singh and Gurdial Singh were obtained on various documents but no such signatures appeared on those documents. Also, the copy of the Jamabandi was with Resham Singh, whereas Resham Singh stated that the copy was delivered to Pal Singh. While PW8 Phulbir Kumar deposed that the jeep was taken to the courtyard of house of the appellant, the other witnesses deposed that the jeep was stopped at some distance from the house of the appellant. Further, according to PW10 DSP Amrik Singh, the raid was conducted only once, whereas, according to PW6 Resham Singh, the raiding party went twice to the house of the appellant. However, after going through the evidence brought on the record, this Court is of the considered view that the discrepancies pointed out are not material and, therefore, do not shake the very substratum of the prosecution case. Even otherwise, PW8 Phulbir Kumar stated that his examination-in-chief was conducted in the pre-lunch session whereas cross- examination was conducted in the post-lunch session and whatever he stated in the pre-lunch session was correct. The appellant has also admitted that the complainant had come to him and raid was conducted by the vigilance. Both DW1 Gurdial Singh and DW2 Darshan Singh also testified that they were present at the house of the appellant on 9.8.1999 for obtaining copy of the Jamabandi when one Pal Singh was sitting with the appellant and one more person was with him. The appellant was preparing a copy which he, later on, handed over to Pal Singh, who gave Rs.50/- to Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -8- the appellant. Pal Singh and the person accompanying him left and returned after 15 minutes. Once the prosecution is able to establish that the appellant had accepted any gratification other than the legal remuneration, the Court is under an obligation to presume unless it is proved to the contrary that he accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing the official act as alleged against him. From the evidence available on the record, it is made out that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification from PW6 Resham Singh so as to supply the copy of the mutation of land measuring 9 kanals and 3 marlas belonging to Pritam Singh, paternal uncle of Resham Singh. The said demand was reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. On 9.8.1999, the appellant, once again, demanded the amount of Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification to supply the copy of the mutation and subsequently accepted the same. Therefore, the Court is left with no other option but to presume that the appellant had demanded and received illegal gratification from PW6 Resham Singh. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the appellant. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellant is facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than eleven years, a case is made out for reduction of sentence of imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No.920-SB of 2001 -9- Resultantly, the conviction of the appellnat for the offences under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment is, however, reduced from two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause, is maintained. But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 07, 2010 JUDGE satish Satish Kumar 2014.04.22 09:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh