Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab

S. D Bajaj, J.

Sham Lal and his father Sant Ram both residents of Village Khurchanpur owned 8 killas of land in village, Naurangwala in Patiala district. Patwari Halqa of Village Naurangwala is in village Sarkapra. Accused Amarjit Singh was posted as Patwari in that Halqa on 8th February, 1984 Sham Lal was to get loan from the Punjab National Bank for boring a tubewell in his land. The Bank needed proof of his ownership of the land and also wanted the complainant to mortgage his land with them in lieu or the loan amount. Sham Lal approached the accused for obtaining a copy of the jamabandi of his land aforesaid. The accused demanded Rs. 150/ by way of illegal gratification for supplying it. The bargain was allegedly settled for Rs. 125/ only and the accused asked Sham Lal to visit him again on 10th February, 1984 and obtain copy on making payment of the agreed amount of illegal gratification.

Raid was organised and conducted around 11.00 A.M. on 10th February, 1984. Inspector Vigilance Satya Sarup P.W. 4 recovered the tainted money from the accused in the presence of complainant Sham Lal and shadow witness Krishan Lal P.W. 2. The handwash of the accused obtained after recovery also turned pink. Vide its impugned judgment dated 20th September, 1985 learned trial court convicted accusedappellant Amarjit Singh of the commission of the offences under sections 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Convicted accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine for his conviction under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for his conviction under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code the accused was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved therefrom convicted accused Amarjit Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No.464SB of 1985 in this Court.

I have heard Shri J. N. Kaushal, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the appellant, Shri B.S. Gill, A.A. G. Punjab for the State, and have carefully gone through the material on record.

There are the following infirmities in prosecution evidence :

(i) According to complainant Sham Lal P.W. 1, accused started preparing the copy of the jarnabandi after accepting the amount of illegal gratification from him. Mere look at the copy of jamabandi Exhibit DE satisfies the court that it could not be prepared by the accused thereafter during the interval the police reached the place of occurrence after getting the agreed signal from shadow witness Krishan Lal P.W. 2 ;

(ii) Jarnail Singh, Canal Patwari admittedly associated by the police as member of the raiding party has not been produced as prosecution witness in the case for the reasons best known to the Prosecution ;

(iii) Instead of associating independent witnesses of the locality from village Sarkapra, where the raid was conducted the prosecution imported shadow witness Krishan Lal P.W. 2 from village Khurchanpur ;

(iv) Even though Shri Harnek Singh, Sarpanch of village Sarkapra was associated in investigation as member of the raiding party yet the prosecution did not choose to produce him in court to support the recovery of tainted money from the accusedappellant.

In reply to the last question in the course of his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure accusedappellant Amarjit Singh asserted

"Sham Lal complainant had in February 1984 approached me for the supply of copy of jamabandi of his land situated at village Norangwal. He had requested me not to give a note on the copy of jamabandi that his land was already under mortgage in respect of loan obtained by him from United Commercial Bank, Ambala City, for the purchase of a tractor. I showed my inability to do so. Sham Lal visited me for this work on 213 occasions. When I finally refused him and asked him not to come to me for this work he threatened me with dire consequences. On 10.2.84, at about 4.00 P.M. I was sitting in the Patwarkhana at Sarkapra. This Patwarkhana is in the Baithak of Hukam Chand Lambardar, Hukam Chand was also sitting by my side. Sham Lal came to me and again asked me to prepare a jamabandi as desired by him, in the presence of Hukam Chand. I asked him to go away from my Baithak. After some time, Sham Lal along with two other persons came to my Baithak. They introduced me themselves as Police Officers and told me that I was wanted in P. S. Julkan in connection with some complaint against me. In P.S. Julkan, this false case was foisted against me. In the evening the police took me to my residential, house at Gurbax Colony, Patiala, where the entire regular record was lying from where the police took into possession all the registers of jamabandi and girdawari. Late in the evening in the police station, I was forced to prepare a copy of jamabandi. When I tried, to put the note of mortgage on the same, it was snatched from me. I was also made to sign certain blank papers. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated.

This Sham Lal complainant is inimical towards me for one more reason. He had taken forcible possession of the land of Sadhu Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh of Norangwala. At the application of Sadhu Singh, myself and Kanungo Khem Singh had gone for demarcation of the land and we had discovered that complainant Sham Lal had taken into possession one bigha of Sadhu Singh."

Explanation offered by the accused for his false implication has been supported out and out by Hukam Chand D.W. 1 and the then Kanungo Khem Singh D.W. 2. D.W. 1 Hukam Chand states, I am Lambardar of my village. I know the accused because he remained posted in my Halqa. He had made his office in my Baithak. That Baithak is being used as Patwarkhana before the accused came in our Halqa. On 10284 I was present in that Patwarkhana when the accused was also there and at about 400 P.M., Sham Lal complainant came to the office of the accused. He asked for find in respect of his land of village Norangwala and requested the accused that he should not mention to the find that the said land was under mortgage but the accused expressed his inability to oblige him. Complainant then repeated his request saying that he will please the accused if he committed to give the said find. The accused however did not agree. The complainant then challenged the accused that he will teach him a lesson and then left the patwarkhana. Sometime thereafter, he came back to the patwarkhana with two officials, who introduced themselves to be police officials and informed the accused that there was some complaint against him in P.S. Julkan and that he should accompany them to that police station. The accused then was taken along by those to the police Station without any recovery being effected Prom the accused." Khem Singh D.W. 2 also states, "In February, 1983, I was posted as Kanungo Kasba Halqa District Patiala. On 121983 I received an application of Sadha Singh of village Norangwala for demarcation of his land in village Norangwala which had been marked to me by the Tehsildar Patiala for carrying out demarcation. On 30483, I went to the spot for demarcation and carried out the same in accordance with rules and instructions. Amarjit Singh accused was the Patwari of the Halqa who reached the spot with the record. That application and the connected papers are not traceable at the Moment though efforts were made by me to locate the file. I have seen the photostat copies of the application the order by Tehsildar on it and report that I had submitted and the Naqsha showing the encroachment produced by the counsel of the accused. These photocopies are of originals. The accused had helped and assisted me in demarcation. Report was correctly made. Encroachment of the land of Sadhu Singh was established on demarcation and Sham Lal was in possession of encroached area as mentioned in report and shown in the plan." Deposition of the two defence witnesses aforesaid clearly brings out as to why and how did the complainant get the accused falsely implicated in the case of corruption set up by the complainant against him.

Furthermore, four kills as of land belonging to the complainant was already mortgaged with the United Commercial Bank, Ambala for tractor loan of Rs. 59,9000/. Therefore, the complainant could mortgage the same land with Punjab National Bank over again for securing another loan for boring the tubewell therein only if the earlier charge on the land was not mentioned in the copy of the jamabandi required by the complainant. Due to the refusal of the accusedappellant to oblige the complainant in this regard, disgruntled complainant in Sham Lal P.W. 1 could certainly, indulge in false implication of the accusedappellant. Explanation offered by the accusedappellant for his alleged false implication at the hands of the complainant thus gets credibility from the circumstances aforesaid.

In similar circumstances it was observed by this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 621 , in a case like this, to bring home the guilt to the accused, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant and had accepted the same in pursuance of the demand. To prove these allegations merely the statement of the complainant or the trap witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974(II) C.L R. 611, that trap witnesses in a case under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being concerned in success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting, the accused. The same view is expressed in Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1976 CLR 366 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLR 93. It has been held in these cases that no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of trapwitnesses in the absence of independent corroboration because the trapwitnesses are interested and partisan witnesses and on that account they spring from tainted source." Need for seeking independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and shadow witnesses was also emphasised in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 122. "It has repeatedly been laid down by the final Court that the giver of bribe is normally to be treated as accomplice and before recording the conviction of the delinquent government servant, independent corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice i.e. the complainant and the shadow witness is normally sought for if not as a matter of law then at least as a matter of prudence. In this case Tilak Raj would have provided the necessary corroboration and his nonexamination cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case."

For the reasons given above, accused Amarjit Singh is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Accused is already on bail. Bail bond furnished by his surety as also personal bond put in by the accused himself shall both stand discharged.

JUDGMENT accordinly.