-1- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: January 22, 2010. Nasib Singh ...Appellant VERSUS State of 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. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, amicus curiae, for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this appeal, appellant Nasib Singh has impugned the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Rupnagar, whereby he was convicted under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') and sentenced to -2- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Kesar Singh had installed a tube-well in his land. In order to avoid any damage to the tube-well in case of fluctuation in the supply of electricity, he had attached one capacitor with the electric motor. Accused-appellant Nasib Singh, who at the relevant time, was posted as Junior Engineer with the Punjab State Electricity Board at Majra came to the village of the complainant, six/seven days prior to the raid, and removed capacitor from the electric motor of the complainant. The accused while doing so left a message with the womenfolk present there that the complainant should meet him in the office. When the complainant went to meet the accused in his office, he (accused) informed the complainant that penalty would be imposed upon him, but he could be saved from the same if he paid Rs.2500/- to the accused as illegal gratification. However, the matter was settled at Rs.2000/- for return of capacitor by the accused to the complainant. As the complainant did not want to pay illegal gratification, he approached the Vigilance Bureau at Chandigarh, contacted Man Singh, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and made statement (Exhibit P.A) on 5.11.1993 before him narrating the whole facts. A raid was accordingly organized to nab the appellant. The members of the raiding -3- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. party included complainant Kesar Singh, Harpal Singh, an independent witness who was to act as a shadow witness, Vijay Kumar Chopra, Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D (B.& R), Electricity Wing, another independent witness, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Man Singh and other police officials. The complainant had produced one currency note of Rs.500/- denomination and fifteen currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each. Their numbers were noted down. Phenolphthalein powder had been applied to these notes and these were handed over to the complainant by instructing him to hand over these currency notes to the accused on his demand. Harpal Singh was to act as a shadow witness. Complainant Kesar Singh and Harpal Singh went to the office of the accused at Majra. The accused met them near the tea shop located in that Complex and inquired from Kesar Singh if he had brought the money and wanted him to pay the same to the accused. The complainant, accordingly, handed over Rs.2000/- to the accused. The shadow witness, namely, Harpal Singh gave the agreed signal to the raiding party, upon which Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Man Singh arrived there and apprehended the accused while he was about to enter in his office after accepting the money. The appellant was made to wash his hands in the water mixed with sodium carbonate and colour of the solution turned pink. On conducting search of the appellant, the tainted currency notes of Rs.2000/- were recovered from him. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the currency notes, the -4- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. numbers of which had earlier been noted down. The wash pertaining to the appellant was sealed in the form of parcel and taken into possession by the police. The currency notes were also taken into possession. After completion of investigation challan against the accused-appellant was presented in the Court. Charge under Section 7 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 Kesar Singh (P.W.1), Harpal Singh (P.W.2), Vijay Kumar Chopra, Sub Divisional Officer (P.W.3), Nachittar Singh (P.W.4), Sadhu Singh (P.W.5), Raj Kumar Kapoor (P.W.6), Mohinder Singh (P.W.8) and Man Singh, Assistant Inspector General (Operation), Punjab, Chandigarh (P.W.9). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant, besides denying the prosecution allegations and pleading false implication, stated as under:- “ The witnesses are inimical towards me as on 27.10.1993 Harpal Singh PW was committing theft of electricity and he was caught red handed by me along with Meter Inspector. He was fined and he deposed the fine with the P.S.E.B and Kesar Singh P.W -5- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. was running his electric motor on single phase connection with the help of condenser. No capacitor was installed on the electric motor. Entry in this regard was made in the office register. Major Singh is nephew of Kesar Singh complainant. He is constable in Vigilance Department with S.P. Man Singh, who in connivance with Man Singh, Kesar Singh and Harpal Singh involved me in this false case. “ He further stated that: “ I am innocent and I have been falsely involved in this case at the instance of Major Singh. There happened a scuffle between Kesar Singh and myself and Meter Inspector when they were caught red handed for theft of electricity.” The -accused appellant examined Gurdev Singh (D.W.1), Prem Singh (P.W.2), Harinder Singh (D.W.3) and Amarjit Singh (D.W.4) in defence. As learned counsel for the appellant did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate, was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and -6- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. have gone through the records of the case. Sadhu Singh, Upper Division Clerk, Punjab State Electricity Board, Morinda Sub Division, Kharar was examined as P.W.5 and he deposed that, at the relevant time, the accused-appellant was posted as Junior Engineer-II at Majra Sub Division, in whose jurisdiction the area/ village of the complainant falls. The copy of the posting order of the accused-appellant in this regard is Exhibit P.L on record. Mohinder Singh (P.W.8), who retired as Senior Assistant and at the relevant time was posted in the office of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana Central, proved the sanction (Exhibit P.L) accorded by the Chief Engineer Karam Singh Dhillon by identifying the signatures of the Chief Engineer on the sanction. Kesar Singh (P.W.4), at whose instance the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs.2000/-, narrated the entire version as mentioned above, and fully supported the prosecution case. He was subjected to a searching cross-examination by the defence counsel before the learned Special Judge, Rupnagar, but nothing could be elicited therefrom which may in any way shatter the prosecution version. Harpal Singh, the shadow witness (P.W.2) corroborated the version given by complainant Nasib Singh on all material particulars of the case. He was also cross-examined at length, but of no help to the appellant. Another witness, namely, Vijay Kumar Chopra, Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D (B & R), Electricity Wing, Punjab Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh (P.W.3), who had also been joined in the police party as an independent -7- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. witness though having official status of Sub Divisional Officer, has also given a cogent version of the whole prosecution story. His testimony regarding the recovery of the tainted money from the accused is on the same lines as that of complainant Kesar Singh and shadow witness Harpal Singh. In his (Vijay Kumar Chopra's) presence, the personal search of the accused was conducted and tainted currency notes of Rs.2,000/- were recovered. He attested the memo (Exhibit P.B) vide which those currency notes were taken into possession. The capacitor which the accused had removed from the electric motor of the accused along with the register were also taken into possession in his presence through memo (Exhibit P.H) which was also attested by him. No discrepancy worth the name could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of Kesar Singh (P.W.1), Harpal Singh (P.W.2) and Vijay Kumar Chopra (P.W.3), who have furnished a true and trustworthy account of the whole events. Man Singh, Assistant Inspector General (Operation), Punjab, Chandigarh (P.W.9), Investigating Officer, who at the relevant time was Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), has reiterated the entire prosecution story, as mentioned above. He had recorded the statement (Exhibit P.A) of complainant Kesar Singh leading to the registration of the instant case against the accused-appellant Nasib Singh and had completed the investigation. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, clearly show that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the -8- Criminal Appeal No.360-SB of 1999. appellant, who was a public servant, from the complainant has been clearly established on record by the prosecution by leading the evidence, discussed above. Consequently, the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the incident relates to November, 1993, and Sword of Damocles has remained hanging on the head of the appellant for more than sixteen years, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years awarded to the appellant by the trial Court under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine and the default clause shall remain unaltered. The impugned sentence order is modified accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. January 22, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE