Arjan Dev vs State of Punjab

A.N. Jindal, J.—Accused-appellant Arjan Dev Sub Inspector in the police was trapped by the Vigilance Department while accepting bribe of Rs. 3000/- from Shingra Singh PW on account of illegal gratification. Consequently, vide judgment dated 3.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rupnagar, he was convicted u/s 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein referred as ''the Act'') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-.

Cross cases were registered between two groups viz Mata Singh, Rula Singh and Didar Singh on one side and Jarnail Singh, Balkar Singh, Malkiat Singh, Ranjit Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Jagmal Singh on the other side.

Shingara Singh complainant and Didar Singh aforesaid are married to two sisters, as such Shingara Singh was pursuing the criminal case on behalf of Didar Singh etc. The accused-appellant Arjan Dev (herein referred as ''the accused'') being in-charge of police post demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- from Shingara Singh for helping Didar Singh etc. However, the matter was settled at Rs. 3000/-. Being reluctant to pay gratification, Shingara Singh contacted DSP Iqbal Singh and made statement Ex.PW6/A, on the basis of which FIR was registered. He handed over the currency notes which were treated by the DSP Iqbal Singh with phenolphthalein powder and after noting down the numbers thereof in the memo Ex.PF returned the same to the him and deputed Chur Singh PW present at that time as a shadow witness. He also joined Amrit Pal Singh Sub Divisional Engineer as an independent witness in the raiding party. When the Investigating Officer reached near the liquor vend of village Mullanpur Garibdas, he also associated Jaspal Singh from the liquor vend and told him about the purpose of joining and also instructed him to accompany Shingara Singh as witness for giving signal to the police party on receipt of money by the accused, accordingly Shingara Singh and Jaspal Singh went to the police post and contacted the accused. The complainant handed over a sum of Rs. 3000/- on demand made by the accused. Jaspal Singh gave signal which was responded by DSP Iqbal Singh. Consequently, they raided the accused and apprehended him red handed. After showing his identity and completing the formalities, hands of the accused were got washed in a glass of water in which sodium carbonate was also added. On hand wash, the water became pink. The same was put into nip which was sealed with the seal bearing impression "BS". On personal search of the accused, a sum of Rs. 3000/- were recovered from the right side of the pocket of his pant. On comparing the numbers of the currency notes recovered from the accused tallied with the numbers as mentioned in the memo Ex.P1. On further search, one purse and service revolver were recovered which were also taken into possession. The right side pocket of the pant of the accused was also dipped into the glass of water mixed with sodium carbonate and this solution also became pink, which was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.P1. On completion of the formalities and obtaining sanction, the accused was challaned.

The accused was charged u/s 7, 13(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. HC Daya Singh (PW1) has proved the posting order dated 26.3.1991 Ex.PA relating to the accused in order to show that the accused was posted at Police Post Mullanpur Garibdas on the relevant date. HC Jagjiwan Singh (PW2) has proved the sanction letter Ex.PC. Mewa Singh Reader to SDM, Kharar (PW3) has proved copies of the Kalendra Ex.PD and Ex.PE. Inspector Kishan Singh has deposed that he handed over FIR No. 85 of 1991 in the office of the Director Vigilance, Chandigarh. Amrit Lal Goyal (PW5), Shingara Singh (PW6) and Jaspal Singh (PW7) are the independent, complainant and shadow witnesses respectively, in order to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money from the accused. HC Bawa Singh (PW8) is the author of the FIR Ex.PN/1. Iqbal Singh, SP (D), Mansa is the then Investigating Officer (PW9). HC Radhy Shyam (PW10) has proved the relevant entry dated 14.8.1991 in register No. 19.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that Jaspal Singh witness is a smuggler and had a liquor vend. Shingara Singh is his worker. DSP Iqbal Singh was inimical towards him. He wanted to put pressure upon him for impleading some persons and challaning them in case FIR No. 164 of 1990 registered at Police Station Kharar. He had also recorded zimnis to that effect and about the threat given by him. He had also brought this fact to the notice of the higher authorities.

In defence, the accused examined HC Harbans Singh No. 942 (DW1) who has proved the DDR dated 15.8.1991 Ex.D-1 and entry No. 5 of 7.8.1991 Ex.D2, at Police Station Mullanpur Garibdas. He has not produced the original record stating that the original has been destroyed after five years. He also admits that at page No. 50 there is over writing on page marking from 51 to 59. Joginder Singh, Senior Assistant office of DIG (Police), Patiala Range, Patiala (DW2) has proved the promotion and posting order of the accused. Manoj Kumar Jain, Clerk in the Judicial Record Room, Rupnagar (DW3) has proved the statement of PW-1 Shingara Singh recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, decided on 21.10.1989, in police challan No. 24 dated 5.9.1988. Ajaib Singh, Superintendent of Police, Barnala (DW5) has proved the copy of the FIR No. 164 of Police Station, Kharar registered in the year 1990. He disclosed that the zimnis dated 23.7.1991, 21.7.1991, 28.7.1991 and 8.6.1991 were received by him as Circle Officer. HC Dilbagh Singh (DW6) proved the DDR dated 12.8.1991 Ex.DW6/A and copy of the FIR Ex.PW6/B. Inspector Ramesh Chander (DW7) is again a witness to prove copy of the FIR No. 164 dated 13.12.1990 Ex.DW5/A. He has not given any date when the investigation of the said FIR was entrusted to the accused. He also says that the zimnis were forwarded by him on 8.6.1991, 28.7.1991 and 21.7.1991 respectively.

On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial court while holding that payment of illegal gratification on demand by the accused for helping Didar Singh etc. in the case stands established, whereas, the defence set up by the accused is fallacious and is an after thought, convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

There is ample, cogent and intrinsic evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. Complainant Shingara Singh (PW6) had the courage to appear in the witness box in order to prove the previous demand of Rs. 5000/- made by the accused stating that the bargain was settled at Rs. 3000/- for helping Didar Singh etc. in the cross case. He has proved the statement Ex.PW6/A and categorically stated that after contacting DSP Iqbal Singh he made the said statement and handed over Rs. 3000/- of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, which were powdered with the phenolphthalein powder and after recording numbers of the currency notes in the memo Ex.PF, same were handed him back in the presence of Chur Ram PW. He has also categorically stated that after reaching near the liquor vend, he also joined Jaspal Singh owner of the vend. Thereafter, he handed over the money to the accused on demand, which was received and pocketed by him in his pant. He has also deposed about the other formalities and preparation of the recovery memos Ex.PI and Ex.PJ. The argument as raised by the learned Counsel is that earlier Chur Ram was joined as a witness but why he was replaced by Jaspal Singh on his way by the Investigating Officer. This requirement creates a doubt over the prosecution case. Jaspal Singh being the liquor vend contractor being under the thumb of the police could go to any extent to depose against him.

Having given my thoughtful consideration in this regard, it may be observed that after setting the law in motion, it was the wisdom of the Investigating Officer to join any number of witnesses. He did not replace Chur Ram by Jaspal Singh but he added Jaspal Singh as an additional witness and nominated him as a shadow witness obviously for his capability to hold such consignment. Mere fact that Chur Ram was not examined hardly effects the substratum of the case. The argument that Jaspal Singh being the liquor vend contractor could depose against the accused to any extent and support the police agency being easily available to the police, is hardly correct, rather Jaspal Singh being directly under the supervision of the accused would be the last person to appear against him as a witness. Moreover, the circumstances reveal that since the matter related to the servant of Jaspal Singh, therefore, the Investigating Officer may have joined his master so that Chur Singh may not resile later on. It is not Jaspal Singh only who has supported the prosecution case. In this case Amrit Lal Goyal appointed by his Director to act as an official witness has also not minsed the words while stating that Arjan Dev ASI had received the illegal gratification from Shingara Singh complainant. On seeing the signal given by Jaspal Singh, they conducted raid. Iqbal Singh DSP after revealing his identity got both the hands of the accused washed in a plain water contained in the glass, the colour of the water did not change, but on the second time the hand wash in the water containing sodium carbonate, the colour of the water turned pink. Besides proving recovery of the tainted currency notes, he has proved the personal search memo and about the colour of the water on washing of the pant of the accused. All the aforesaid witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination but nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies which may create a dent in the prosecution case. Jaspal Singh shadow witness has categorically stated that when Shingara Singh went to the accused he had stood at nearby shop from where he could ever hear and see the accused receiving the illegal gratification and he made the signal to the independent witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer who was monitoring the trap. Since the recovery stands fully proved besides the demand and receipt of payment, as such Section 20(1) of the Act is attracted. Reliance could be placed on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case The State represented by C.B.I. Hydrabad v. G. Prem Raj 2009 (4) RCR (Crl.) 927 wherein it was observed as under:

It could not be comprehended why a hotel was selected for doing official work. The accused failed to explain as to why hotel was selected for doing official work. Accused kept the money in the bag attached to the scooter from where the same was recovered. The fact that bag and scooter were not seized has no consequence when it was proved that money was recovered from the accused. Presumption of Section 20 was available, but High Court ignored the same. High Court, thus, has committed an error. When the amount was recovered from the accused, it was for the accused to explain as to how the amount came in his possession. Panch witnesses proved the demand and recovery from the accused. Neither the complainant nor other witnesses had any enmity with the accused, therefore, there was non reason for these persons to falsely implicate the respondent-accused.

The main plank of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the brother of the accused namely Jagjeet Singh was a complainant in the case FIR No. 164 of 13.12.1990, registered under Sections 406/420/467 IPC. Since DSP Iqbal Singh wanted that the accused should challan certain person to which he could not oblige, therefore, he was implicated in this case. He has also stated with regard to the altercation and threat given by DSP Iqbal Singh which were recorded in the police diaries. He has also examined Inspector Ramesh Chander DW5 who was the then Station House Officer, Police Station Kharar. He has deposed that the FIR No. 164 was registered on behalf of Jagjeet Singh brother of Iqbal Singh etc. and proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PW5/A. Though, he has stated that the investigation of the said case was entrusted to the accused, yet, surprisingly he has missed or intentionally not given the date as to when the investigation of the case was entrusted to the accused. He has also not proved any part of the investigation which the accused had conducted in the case. The only participation made by the accused in the said case is regarding making of entries on 21.7.1991, 28.7.1991 and 8.6.1991 in the rapat roznamcha, but, it is not explained by him or any other witness as to if the accused ever caused any damage in the prosecution of the accused nominated in the said FIR and provided an occasion to Iqbal Singh to make a threat. The original of the zimni mark A1 to A-3 have not been brought on record. Telephonic record, stating that, DSP Iqbal Singh had threatened has also not been proved, rather, it appears that these entries are tempered and an after thought. The record of FIR No. 164 was not taken into possession from the accused at the time of trap, therefore, while getting benefit of the record in his possession entries were inserted.

I have gone through the entries Ex.DW6/A which reveal that Ramesh Singh Station House Officer had got deposited the ammunition which was provided to some security personnels deputed at the farm of Iqbal Singh. While referring this DDR dated 12.8.1991, the learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to persuade that Iqbal Singh DSP intended to have grudge from Ramesh Singh for withdrawing ammunition from the security personnels, at his farm. In this regard, it is observed that had this report been correct, then only inference could be drawn that DSP Iqbal Singh had the grudge against Ramesh Singh SHO, Police Station Kharar and not against the accused. Had he any such grudge against Ramesh Singh SHO, then he would have implicated him along with the accused or Ramesh Singh alone.

As regards DDR dated 8.6.1991, it may be observed that earlier this DDR is purported to have been made on 8.6.1990 and thereafter the date was changed to 8.6.1991 and there are tempering and altercations in the DDR with regard to receipt of the same in the Circle Office as also dispatch from the police station.

As regards the DDR Ex.DW6/B and DW6/C, the same also appear to be an after thought and inserted later on as the accused was very much in possession of the file pertaining to FIR No. 164 dated 13.12.1990 and any entry could be made in the said record to save himself. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the aforesaid DDRs to hold that the Investigating Officer was inimical against the accused. As such, it would be inappropriate to hold that the defence as set up by the accused is plausible and worth reliance. No enmity worth the name as a motive to falsely involve the accused is proved on the record.

No other argument has been advanced.

Thus, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.