IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 Date of Decision : November 12, 2010 Iqbal Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. Vide judgment and order dated 7.12.1995 passed by Special Judge, Ferozepur, the appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. According to the prosecution, on 4.2.1993 complainant Balwinder Singh got recorded his statement Ex. PA before Inspector Babu Singh, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur to the effect that he was Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -2- holding General Power of Attorney of Dilbagh Singh and had purchased 28 kanals 6 marlas of land in the name of Dilbagh Singh, who also resided with him. The complainant had mortgaged above said land against pronote and in order to get the land redeemed, he went to the office of Housing Board, Ferozepur to raise a loan where he was told that for the said purpose, he should produce copy of khasra girdawari and jamabandi of atleast 3½ killas of land. On 3.2.1993, the complainant met the appellant, who was Patwari of his village Jang, in his office at Ferozepur and asked him to supply copy of requisite documents in respect of 28 kanals 6 marlas of land but the appellant told him that the work was quite lengthy and for this work, he would take Rs.200/- as bribe. The complainant being a poor person and unable to pay the said amount, the deal was settled at Rs.100/-. As the complainant was not having any money with him at that time, he told the appellant that he would come the next day with the bribe money. The complainant after making a false promise to the appellant went and on 4.2.1993 met Inspector Babu Singh, Vigilance Bureau Unit, Ferozepur alongwith Karamjit Singh, Sarpanch of his village, where his aforesaid statement was recorded. Further case of the prosecution is that the complainant produced two currency notes of the Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -3- denomination of Rs.50/- each before the Inspector, who treated them with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant. Nothing else remained with the complainant. Thereafter, Inspector Babu Singh directed the complainant that he should hand over the currency notes to the appellant only on demand while Karamjit Singh, Sarpanch was directed to accompany the complainant as a shadow witness and after the appellant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification to give a signal to the raiding party by waiving his hand over his head. Inspector Babu Singh washed his hands with soap. After making endorsement Ex. PA/1 on statement Ex. PA, Inspector Babu Singh sent the same to the Police Station through Constable Baj Singh. The Inspector also took Constable Baj Singh with him in the jeep alongwith other members of the raiding party. On the way, Narinder Pal Singh, Clerk, office of Drainage Division, Golewala was joined in the raiding party and he was introduced by the Inspector with the raiding party. When the raiding party reached in front of the office of Divisional Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur, the Inspector sent Constable Baj Singh to Police Station City, Ferozepur with statement Ex. PA, on the basis of which FIR No.11 dated 4.2.1993, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the appellant. From there, the Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -4- complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the appellant and after some time Karamjit Singh, shadow witness gave signal to the raiding party. Thereafter, the raiding party reached the office of the accused, who was found talking with the complainant while sitting on the chair. The Inspector disclosed his identity to the appellant and said that he had accepted Rs.100/- as illegal gratification from the complainant, who was sitting in front of him on the chair. The appellant became perplexed and begged for pardon. The Inspector arranged one clean glass and put water and sodium carbonate in the same and prepared solution. The Inspector asked Narinder Pal Singh to wash his hands in the solution but the colour of the solution did not change. When the hands of the appellant were washed in the said solution, the colour of the same turned to light pink. The said solution was put in an empty nip Ex. P1 and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'BSG' and signatory chit of Narinder Pal Singh was put on it. The said nip Ex. P1 was taken into possession by the Inspector vide memo. Ex. PC which was attested by the complainant and the shadow witness. The search of the appellant led to recovery of two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each from the inner pocket of his coat. The number of the currency notes recovered from the appellant tallied with the numbers of the currency notes noted in memo. Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -5- Ex. PB. The currency notes were taken into possession by the Inspector vide recovery memo. Ex. PD, which was attested by the witnesses. Further search of the appellant led to recovery of currency notes worth Rs.3105/- from the purse from the same pocket of the coat of the appellant. A wrist watch from the left wrist of the appellant was also recovered. The same were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PE, which was attested by the witnesses and by the appellant as well. Another solution was prepared in which inner pocket of the coat of the appellant was put and the colour of the solution became light pink. The solution was put in another empty nip, which was sealed by the Inspector with his seal bearing impression 'BSG' and signatory chit of Narinder Pal Singh was also put on it. The Inspector took coat of the appellant in possession by preparing a parcel. The nip Ex. P4 and parcel Ex. P5 were taken into possession by him vide memo. Ex. PF, which was attested by the witnesses. The copies of khasra girdawri Ex. P7 and jamabandi Ex. P6 recovered from the complainant, which were prepared by the appellant on 4.2.1993, were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PG, which was attested by the aforesaid witnesses. The girdawri register Ex. P9, jamabandi register Ex. P8, copy of fee register Ex. P10, which were lying on the table of the accused, ball pen with red refill Ex. P11 and Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -6- pen of black ink Ex. P12, were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PH by the Inspector, which was also attested by the aforesaid witnesses. Rough site plan Ex. PL was also prepared. Thereafter, the Inspector recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the appellant. On return to Police Station City, Ferozepur, the appellant was put in the lock up and the case property deposited with MHC Mukhtiar Singh with seals intact on the same day. Upon completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction of the District Collector, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court of Sessions, where charge under Section 13(2) of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 complainant Balwinder Singh, PW2 Karamjit Singh, shadow witness, PW3 Narinder Pal Singh, Clerk, PW4 Varinder Kumar, Kanungo, PW5 Tarlok Singh, Kanungo and PW6 Babu Singh, Inspector, by then DSP. The prosecution also tendered affidavits Ex. PM/1 of Constable Sardool Singh, Ex. PN of Constable Baj Singh and Ex. PO of MHC Mukhtiar Singh. Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -7- When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the allegations of the prosecution. He pleaded that he was innocent and there was a Gaushala in village Jang which was having 10 acres area and this land used to be cultivated by Darshan Singh and others, who were the cousin brothers of complainant Balwinder Singh but they never used to make any payment to the Gaushala. Babu Lal, Manager of the Gaushala filed civil suit against Darshan Singh and others and the Court passed decree against them for recovery but the said amount was not paid by Darshan Singh and others and the Court passed order that the recovery be effected by attaching the standing crop. Then he and Madan Lal, Kanungo went to the spot and attached the standing crop. Notice was given in the village by beat of drum but during night, they cut the crop and chowkidar gave information to the Court. The police arrested them and he was witness in the said proceedings. Darshan Singh and others wanted him to give statement in the Court that he had not gone to the spot in the village but he refused and on that account he has been falsely implicated in this case. The father of Balwinder Singh had died and Balwinder Singh came to him for entering mutation of succession of his father and he brought Lamberdar of the other Patti and got entered mutation in the name of his three brothers and he got it attested Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -8- from the Lamberdar of the concerned Patti, who had told him that Balwinder Singh has got two sisters and mother as well and then he obtained the signatures of the Lamberdar of the concerned Patti and on that account Balwinder Singh also nursed grudge against him and got him falsely implicated. In defence, the appellant examined DW1 Surinder Singh, Ahlmad to the Court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, JMIC, Ferozepur and DW2 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Office Kanungo, Tehsil Office, Ferozepur. 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 the status of complainant Balwinder Singh is that of an accomplice and his testimony can only be accepted if it is corroborated by independent evidence. Even Karamjit Singh, who was the shadow witness, is not an independent witness as he happened Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -9- to be the Sarpanch of the village of complainant Balwinder Singh. It is true that the status of giver of bribe is not better than that of an accomplice and, therefore, his testimony requires corroboration from an independent witness before it may be accepted. However, in the present case, the testimony of Balwinder Singh is duly corroborated by Karamjit Singh, who was deputed as a shadow witness by Inspector Babu Singh to accompany the complainant to the office of the appellant to over- hear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant and to give a signal to the raiding party as and when the bribe is accepted by the appellant. His testimony is further corroborated by PW3 Narinder Pal Singh, Clerk of Drainage Division, Ferozepur, who had also accompanied the raiding party. In his presence the appellant was apprehended and his hand-wash taken which turned out to be positive, meaning thereby that he had touched the tainted currency notes. Those currency notes were also recovered from the inside pocket of the coat worn by the appellant. The pocket was also dipped into the solution of water and sodium carbonate, which solution became pink. This indicated that the appellant had put the tainted currency notes in the pocket of his coat from where they were later on recovered. Therefore, the testimonies of PW1 Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -10- complainant Balwinder Singh, PW2 Karamjit Singh, a shadow witness and PW3 Narinder Pal Singh, witness to the recovery of the tainted currency notes can be safely relied upon to uphold the conviction of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that complainant Balwinder Singh had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant in collusion with Karamjit Singh Sarpanch of the village as the appellant had attested the mutation regarding inheritance of his father. Further, the appellant had appeared as a witness in case “State Vs. Darshan Singh, etc.” FIR No.38 dated 28.11.1991 registered at Police Station Mamdot under Sections 379/34 IPC and, thus, incurred wrath of PW2 Karamjit Singh. In this regard he has referred to the testimonies of DW2 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Office Kanungo and DW1 Surinder Singh, Ahlmad to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur. However, this Court finds that the appellant was not the final authority who was to attest the mutation with regard to the inheritance of Gurbachan Singh, father of complainant Balwinder Singh. Even as per copy of the mutation Ex.DB, it is not made out that complainant Balwinder Singh had ever put pressure upon the appellant to enter wrong mutation in his Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -11- favour and his brother by excluding other legal heirs, who were also entitled to some share out of the estate of Gurbachan Singh. Similarly, appearance of the appellant as a prosecution witness in the theft case registered against Darshan Singh and others is not sufficient to hold that Karamjit Singh, shadow witness had any occasion to coin false version against the appellant. Here, there are testimonies of PW3 Narinder Pal Singh and PW6 Inspector Babu Singh, who had no enmity or hostility against the appellant to falsely implicate him in the case. Challenge has also been made to the sanction Ex.PJ obtained by the prosecution against the appellant. However, merely because PW4 Varinder Kumar deposed that he did not personally appear before the District Collector or put up the file before him or that he did not know as to who had obtained the sanction, will not lead this Court to hold that sanction Ex.PJ obtained by the prosecution suffers from any illegality or infirmity. Rather, a close look at the sanction Ex.PJ shows that the District Collector did not grant the same in routine. In fact, he had perused the entire file and only then he felt satisfied that a case was made out for granting sanction against the appellant for prosecuting him for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Crl. Appeal No. 772-SB of 1995 -12- In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that 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 about 17 years and is now 73 years of age and likely to lose job and retiral benefits on account of his conviction, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is upheld. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of three years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 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 ) November 12, 2010 JUDGE satish Satish Kumar 2014.05.01 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh