Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral)

Amarjit Singh son of Bachan Singh has filed the present Criminal Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.1.1993 passed by the court of Special Judge, Ropar, who convicted appellant under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Brief facts of the case are that Amarjit Singh was working as SDO PWD (B&R), Ropar. Jaswant Singh Inspector got a secret information that Amarjit Singh amassed wealth more than his known source of income. He sent ruqa Ex. PW.16/A. The income of Amarjit Singh accused from 1977 to 1983 was Rs. 1,72,310.55. As per allegations of the prosecution the appellant purchased Plot No. 372 situated in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar for a sum of Rs. 15,859.23 in the name of his wife and spent a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/ on the construction of the house. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the appellant also purchased plot No. 348 in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar for a sum of Rs. 55,907.05 in the name of his father. Further allegations of the prosecution are that the appellant also purchased another plot No. 178 for Rs. 14,609.23 in the name of his father in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. Further it was stated by the prosecution that the account of Bachan Singh father of the appellant was checked and it was found that he had a very small amount of Rs. 79.16 in account No. 546 and he was having another account No. 786 in which also he had a very small amount of Rs. 98.85. So prosecution alleged that the accused had amassed the property worth Rs. 2,39,553.05 and the appellant could not account for Rs. 67,242.05. Further it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant purchased benami plot in the name of his father. Shri Jaswant Singh who started investigation in this case, took into possession the files of plots No. 372, 348 and 178 vide recovery memo Ex. PA. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant Amarjit Singh forged record of the Trust. After completion of the investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned in the court of Special Judge who framed the charges against the appellant under Section 5(1)(e) alleging that the appellant was not in a position to account for Rs. 67,242.05 and thus allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was also alleged that the appellant committed an offence under sections 465/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses. Prosecution also tendered in evidence files of the three plots and those files were taken into possession from the office of the Improvement Trust, Ropar.

The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant. He denied those circumstances and finally he stated that the case was false and PWs have deposed falsely against him.

In defence, the accused examined his father Shri Bachan Singh who appeared as DW.1. According to this witness, he had purchased two plots in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. Their numbers are 372 and 348. He had constructed a house on plot No. 372. He purchased plots from Improvement Trust and paid the consideration. It was also stated by this witness that he was running a truck and hotel at Calcutta. He had two kilas of land. I was getting the amount through cheque. He was depositing the amount in the bank. He gave of attorney to Amarjit Singh to purchase the plot on his behalf. He gave him the amount. He also gave power of attorney to accused for correspondence. The accused has no connection with the plots No. 372 and 348. DW.2 is Shri Balbir Singh cashiercumclerk State Bank of Patiala, Ropar. He proved the document Ex.DA issued by the Bank. DW.3 Naresh Kumar, Clerk, State Bank of Patiala, Ropar proved the statement of account Ex.DB and Ex.DC of Bachan Singh besides certificates Ex.DD and Ex.DE. It was stated by this witness that the amount mentioned in Ex.DD was received by Bachan Singh from foreign. Certain other documents were also filed by the prosecution which have no bearing on the case.

Learned Special Judge believed the story of the prosecution in part. The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 465/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant was convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal.

I have heard Shri Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Parminder Singh on behalf of the appellant and Shri Randhir Singh, learned DAG Punjab on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance gone through the record of the case.

The appellant in this case was chargesheeted for four charges. For three charges, he has already been acquitted by the court. Fourth charge under which the appellant was convicted was that during the check period 1977 to 1983 when he was working as a SDO he misconducted himself by amassing property and that he could not account for Rs. 67,242.50. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant''s salary during the check period was Rs. 1,72,310.55 and in this manner Rs. 67,242.05 could not be counted for. The prosecution and the trial Court proceeded on the assumption as if plots No. 372 and 148 are properties of Shri Amarjit Singh or that he had purchased these properties benami in the name of his father. Prosecution is further assuming that plot No. 178 was purchased by Amarjit Singh in the name of his wife Smt. Jaswant Kaur. Assuming I want to give entire concession to the prosecution though it is not proved on the record that plots No. 372 and 348 were purchased by the appellant in his own name as it was initially the case of the prosecution. A perusal of the relevant files shows that plots No. 372 and 348 were purchased by Bachan Singh in his own name and not by the accused. Initial value of plots No. 372 and 348 was Rs. 12,500/ each. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that value of plot No. 372 was Rs. 15,859.23 still it has to be seen whether this plot was purchased by Amarjit Singh or he purchased the plot in the name of Bachan Singh as benami or that Bachan Singh purchased plots in his own name with his own money. Plot No. 348 was purchased in auction by Bachan Singh with his own resources. Plot No. 178 was purchased by Jaswant Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh. Value of plot No. 178 was Rs. 14,609.23 only. Admittedly salary of the appellant during the check period from 1977 to 1983 was Rs. 1,72,318.55. During the years from 1977 to 1983 the price index was not so soaring as it is today. The point for determination would be whether the appellant was in possession of a sum of Rs. 14,609.23 in order to purchase plot No. 178 in the name of his wife or not ? The answer of the court would be in affirmative. It is not established on the record that the expenditure of the appellant was to that extent that he even could not spare or save Rs. 15,000/ in order to purchase plot No. 178 in the name of his wife. Out of the total sum of Rs. 1,72,310.55 he could easily save Rs. 14,000/ in order to purchase plot the price of which was to go in instalments. With regard to plots No. 372 and 348 first of all, I would like to determine the ownership of plots because the trial Court has assumed as if the appellant had purchased these plots benami in the name of his father. Shri K.R. Budhiraja appeared in this case as PW.5. He has given the history of plot No. 178. He categorically stated that this plot was auctioned in the name of Jaswant Kaur and the consideration was Rs. 12,500/ which was to be paid in instalments. Further it has been stated by this witness that Amarjit Singh appellant has not filed any application in his own name with regard to plot No. 178. Regarding plot No. 372 the witness deposed that the plot was allotted in the name of Bachan Singh and the consideration was paid in eight instalments and Shri Amarjit Singh never made any application at his own behalf with regard to allotment of plot No. 372. Further this witness testified that the price of plot was paid by Bachan Singh. PW.7 Shri Manmohan Singh has given the history with regard to plot No. 348 and it has been stated that the area of the plot was 500 sq. yards and that was allotted in the name of Bachan Singh for a sum of Rs. 48,300/. It was through auction. Amarjit Singh appellant was present at the time of auction and he signed the bidsheet but he signed on behalf of his father. Subsequently Amarjit Singh moved an application for transfer of the plot in his name which was allowed. Thus it is again proved that plot No. 348 was allotted in the name of Shri Bachan Singh and the consideration was paid by Bachan Singh but later on this plot was transferred in the name of Amarjit Singh. Now it will be seen whether Shri Bachan Singh was in a position to pay consideration of Rs. 70,516.28 as price of plots No. 372 and 348 besides he was in a position to incur expenditure of Rs. 1,53,000/ on the construction of plot No. 372. The total costs including the price of the plots would come to Rs. 2.23 lacs. By giving margin of 20% on the construction we can see whether Bachan Singh was in a position to spend Rs. 2 lac. There are two proved documents on the record which have not been taken note of very well or appreciated by the trial Court. The first document is Ex.DA. the certificate issued by State Bank of Patiala and proved by Shri Balbir Singh (DW.2). A reading of the same would show that Shri Bachan Singh had two saving bank accounts No. 546 and 706 in State Bank of Patiala. Further Shri Bachan Singh had been receiving the amount as foreign remittance from 18.1.1982 to 18.6.1984. If the amounts from 18.1.1982 to 18.6.1984 was taken note of, it would come to Rs. 78,238/. There is another document Ex.DD issued by State Bank of Patiala which shows that remittance was received by Bachan Singh from 3.11.1977 upto 11.3.1982 and the said amount was credited in two saving bank accounts No. 4812 and 5132. A reading of this document would show that a sum of Rs. 65,660/ was received by Shri Bachan Singh through foreign remittance. Certificate Ex.DE would further show that a sum of Rs. 26,950/ was also received by Bachan Singh. In this manner Bachan Singh had an additional resources of Rs. 1,70,000/ at his own convenience and and he would even borrow some amount from here and there and prosecution has not led any evidence to show that Bachan Singh was not in a position to borrow any money from other resources. A person who can get good amount of remittance running into Rs. 1,70,000/ from foreign resources can also arrange some money from other resources in order to purchase two plots and put construction on plot No. 372. The Investigation Officer has taken note of this aspect that plots Nos. 372 and 348 were in fact purchased by Bachan Singh who was in a position to arrange the amount for the purchase of the said plots and construct a house on plot No. 348. So far as Jaswant Kaur is concerned the accused could spare and save the amount to purchase plot No. 178 and construct a house thereon. Thus it cannot be said that plots No. 372 and 348 were purchased benami and rather the law is that the person in whose name the property is purchased is the real owner of the property unless and until the evidence is rebutted by the prosecution which is totally wanting in this case. Investigating Officer as well as the trial Court has proceeded with the assumption that the entire property was purchased by Amarjit Singh and that he has fabricated the record by transferring property in the name of his father and his wife. It is not borne out from the record as has been testified by Shri K.R. Budhiraja and Manmohan Singh that any forgery of the record was committed at any stage nor was there any complaint from any quarter. Thus it cannot be said that the appellant had amassed property worth Rs. 2.39 lacs or that he could not account for the property worth Rs. 67,242/. In fact the appellant acquired one plot in the name of his wife Jaswant Kaur and at that time value of the plot was Rs. 14,000/ approximately and this amount he could arrange from his known resources.

Resultantly, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment, conviction and order of sentence and acquit the appellant of the remaining charge under section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.