Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 Date of Decision : July 29, 2011 Karam Chand .... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Manish Joshi, Advocate for the appellant – Karam Chand. Mr. G. S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the appellant – Bhan Singh. Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common judgment, I am disposing of four criminal appeals i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 and Crl. Appeal No. 118-SB of 2003 – both filed by Karam Chand – accused and Crl. Appeal No. 288- SB of 2003 and Crl. Appeal No. 289-SB of 2003 – both filed by Bhan Singh – accused because all these four appeals have arisen out of single FIR No.115 dated 27.09.1995, under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and also under Section 9 of Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 2 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short – the Act), registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala. The FIR was lodged by Rajinder Kumar alleging that both the accused promised to get him job in Punjab Roadways against payment of Rs.65,000/- by exercising their influence on the concerned General Manager of Punjab Roadways. The complainant paid Rs.47,000/- to the accused on 13.03.1995, whereas the balance amount of Rs.18,000/- was to be paid after getting employment. About 2½ months thereafter, accused gave appointment order dated 20.06.1995 to complainant Rajinder Kumar purporting to have been issued by General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawan Shahar under his seal and signatures. The complainant went to the office of Punjab Roadways, Nawan Shahar to join duty, but Clerk in the said office told that the appointment letter in question was not issued by the said office. The complainant came back and met the accused, who asked him to wait for some more time, but thereafter, neither the complainant got employment in Punjab Roadways nor his amount was returned. During investigation, it transpired that in the same manner, the accused had received Rs.40,000/- from Jaspal Singh, Rs.38,000/- from Mangal Singh, Rs.50,000/- from Sarwan Singh, Rs.26,000/- from Charanjit Singh and Rs.50,000/- from Harjit Singh. Since more than three transactions could not be joined in one charge-sheet, the police, on completion of investigation, presented two separate reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for prosecution Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 3 of both the accused Bhan Singh and Karam Chand for offences under Section 9 of the Act and Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 473 IPC. Corruption Case No.3 of 1996 on the file of learned Special Judge, Kapurthala pertains to amounts received by the accused from Rajinder Kumar, Jaspal Singh and Mangal Singh, whereas Corruption Case No.5 of 1997 pertains to amounts received by the accused from Sarwan Singh, Charanjit Singh and Harjit Singh. In both the cases, charge under Section 9 of the Act and Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 473 IPC was separately framed against both the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the above mentioned victims of the accused and also some other witnesses, in whose presence the amounts had been paid by the victims to the accused. Except victim Jaspal Singh (PW-1) and his father Piara Singh (PW-2) examined in Case No.3 of 1996 (who turned hostile), all the other material witnesses broadly supported the prosecution case. Other concerned witnesses were also examined in the case. Both the accused, in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence in both the cases and claimed to be innocent. Accused Bhan Singh alleged that he was running a shop in rented premises and the landlord wanted to get the shop vacated. His goods were thrown out of the shop and he was taken to Police Station, where he was detained Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 4 illegally for about a month and then false implicated in this case. Karam Chand simply stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, one Taar has been examined as DW-1. He stated that accused Karam Chand was working as agricultural labourer with this witness and was not employed anywhere. Bhan Singh accused also used to do labour work and was not doing any other job. Learned Special Judge, Kapurthala, vide separate judgments dated 27.11.2002 in both the cases, convicted both the accused under Section 9 of the Act and Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 473 IPC and vide separate orders of even date in both the cases, sentenced both the convicts in each case as under :- Offence Sentence In default of payment of fine U/s 9 of the RI for 3 years and RI for 3 months. Prevention fine of Rs.1000/- of Corruption each. Act. U/s 420 I.P.C RI for 3 years and RI for 3 months. fine of Rs.1000/- each. U/s 465 I.P.C RI for one year each. - U/s 466 I.P.C RI for 3 years and RI for 3 months. fine of Rs.1000/- each. Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 5 U/s 468 I.P.C RI for 3 years and RI for 3 months. fine of Rs.1000/- each. U/s 471 I.P.C RI for 3 years and RI for 2 months. fine of Rs.500/- each. U/s 473 I.P.C RI for 3 years and RI for 2 months. fine of Rs.500/- each. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, the instant four criminal appeals have been preferred by the convicts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant Bhan Singh mainly prayed that sentence awarded to Bhan Singh in the two cases be ordered to run concurrently, without assailing his conviction. It was pointed out that the case was registered on 27.09.1995 i.e. almost 16 years ago. It was also pointed out that Bhan Singh has remained in custody for 02 years, 06 months and 28 days in Case No.3 and 02 years, 03 months and 28 days in Case No.5. Learned counsel for the appellant Karam Chand contended that Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 6 victims paid the amounts to Bhan Singh and not to Karam Chand, and therefore, guilt of Karam Chand is not proved. It was also contended that even forged appointment letter of Karam Chand himself was also recovered from the custody of Bhan Singh accused, during investigation. Learned counsel for the appellant Karam Chand also prayed for concurrent running of sentence on the same grounds as submitted by learned counsel for appellant Bhan Singh. Learned State counsel has opposed the contentions raised by counsel for the appellants. It was contended that all the prosecution witnesses except Jaspal Singh (PW-1) and his father Piara Singh (PW-2) in Case No.3 of 1996 have supported the prosecution case. They had no enmity with the accused. They had no reason to implicate the accused in false case. It was also submitted that the accused have committed serious offences, and therefore, they do not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Prosecution witnesses have broadly supported the prosecution case. Their statements could not be impeached in their cross-examination. Statements of victims are also corroborated by some other witnesses, in whose presence the amounts were paid to the accused. As regards contention of counsel for the appellant Karam Chand that the amounts were paid to Bhan Singh and not to Karam Chand, the contention cannot be accepted. Harjit Singh (PW-3), Rajinder Kumar (PW-6) and Mangal Singh (PW-8) (in Case No.3 of 1996) Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 7 have stated that the amounts were paid to both the accused persons. In Case No.5, Charanjit Singh (PW-5) and Swaran Singh (PW-6) have stated that they paid the amounts to Bhan Singh in the presence of Karam Chand. Consequently, it cannot be said that Bhan Singh only received the amounts from the victims. The amounts were paid to both the accused. Consequently, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. Recovery of forged appointment letter of Karam Chand accused would also not be sufficient to exonerate him. In this context, it has to be noticed that Karam Chand had gone to the Village of complainant Rajinder Kumar because Bhago – aunt of Karam Chand was residing there. Bhan Singh accompanied Karam Chand to the house of Bhago there. It was there that the victims came into contact with both the accused, who assured to get them employment on payment of illegal gratification. It was there that both the accused received the amounts of illegal gratification. Thus, Karam Chand is equally guilty with Bhan Singh. Karam Chand stands at par with Bhan Singh and case of Karam Chand is not distinguishable from that of Bhan Singh. Karam Chand has not alleged any reason for his false implication. Defence evidence in the form of statement of Taar (DW-1) is of no help to Karam Chand. The prosecution witnesses would not have deposed falsely against the accused without any rhyme or reason. The witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination and their statements could not be impeached or shaken in any manner in their cross-examination. Crl. Appeal No. 117-SB of 2003 8 Their statements inspire confidence and are sufficient to prove the guilt of both the accused. For the reasons aforesaid, I concur with the finding of the trial Judge that guilt of both the accused in both the cases stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, impugned convictions in both the cases are affirmed. As regards sentence, I find merit in the submissions of counsel for the appellants. The cases were registered almost 16 years ago. The accused have undergone the agony of trial (including these appeals) for almost 16 years. They were sentenced separately in two cases because more than three transactions could not be combined in one charge-sheet. On the contrary, there is single FIR regarding both the cases. Consequently, ends of justice would be met if the sentences awarded to the appellants separately in two cases are ordered to run concurrently instead of consecutively. It is ordered accordingly. The net result is that each appellant shall undergo sentence of imprisonment for three years in all. With modification in sentence, all the four appeals stand disposed of accordingly. The appellants, who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence. July 29, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE