Bachan Lal vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.—This criminal appeal was filed by Bachan Lal convict since deceased and now represented by his widow Murti Devi.

Prosecution case is that the convict was posted as Assessment Clerk in Irrigation Department. There were three cases of theft of canal water against complainant Bhupinder Singh, who had been summoned by the canal authorities. The complainant went to the accused Bachan Lal, who demanded Rs. 200/-as illegal gratification for helping the complainant in the theft cases. The deal was, however, struck at Rs. 100/-. Complainant along with Hazura Singh met Ranjit Singh Dhillon, DSP Vigilance on 16.03.1998 and made statement to him about the aforesaid demand of bribe. Thereupon FIR was registered. Hazura Singh was made shadow witness. Demonstration of Sodium Carbonate solution turning into pink colour on adding Phenolphthalein powder was given. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to currency note of Rs. 100/-denomination given by the complainant. The said currency note was returned to the complainant. Trap was laid. The complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused whereas the remaining party stayed a little away. The accused demanded Rs. 100/-as bribe. The complainant gave the tainted currency note to the accused. The accused kept the currency note in the file of the theft case. Hazura Singh shadow witness gave signal to the police party. Accordingly, DSP along with other police officials and Parminder Singh, Surveyor in Soil Conservation Department, who had also been joined in the raiding party, reached the spot and seized the tainted currency note from the file. Hand wash of the accused changed the colour of Sodium Carbonate solution into pink. Necessary investigation was conducted. Accused was arrested. On completion of investigation, accused was sent for trial for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act).

Charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Head Constable Gurbhej Singh PW-1 and Constable Karamjit Singh PW-2 being formal witnesses tendered their affidavits in evidence.

Meena Rani PW-3 proved sanction order of prosecution of the accused.

Harkishan Singh PW-4 proved service book of the accused.

Kirpal Singh, Head Revenue Clerk PW-5 stated that theft case file Ex.PE was being dealt with by the accused Bachan Lal, Assessment Clerk.

Complainant Bhupinder Singh PW-6, shadow witness Hazura Singh PW-7 and investigating officer Ranjit Singh Dhillon, DSP PW-9 broadly stated according to the prosecution version. Bhupinder Singh PW-6 initially faltered in examination-in-chief by deposing that the accused had told him that he would get the theft cases settled, but there was no talk regarding demand of money by the accused on that day i.e. 2-3 days before 16.03.1998. However, in cross-examination by the public prosecutor, Bhupinder Singh also deposed according to the prosecution version.

Amar Singh PW-8 stated that he and his brother had given half acre land on lease to complainant-Bhupinder Singh.

Parminder Singh could not be examined as he had since died.

The accused when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while admitting his posting as Assessment Clerk broadly denied the other incriminating evidence led against him by the prosecution. The accused pleaded that the complainant had grudge against officials of the department, who had registered cases of theft against the complainant and, therefore, the accused was falsely implicated.

In defence, the accused examined three witnesses. Bhupinder Singh, Irrigation Patwari DW-1 stated that he had prepared three cases regarding theft of canal water against complainant Bhupinder Singh. The said cases were to be decided by Amarjit Singh Sohi, concerned Collector of the Department. This witness also stated about the procedure. He deposed that file is prepared by Patwari. The file is then sent by Ziledar to Sub Divisional Officer. After completion of case and service of accused, the case is sent to Division for decision by the Collector. The witness also stated that the accused had no role to play in the processing of the file or in the decision of the theft cases.

Amrik Singh DW-2 stated that on 16.03.1998, he had gone to office of Canal Department to attend case of water theft registered against him. The Police came there and went to the office room of the accused. No money was recovered from the accused. The police took away the accused.

Amarjit Singh Sohi DW-3 stated that he was working as Collector of two Sub Divisions on 16.03.1998. The accused was posted as Assessment Clerk. The accused was only to put up the relevant case file before the Collector, who was to decide the case.

Learned Special Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.10.2002 convict the accused u/s 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2500/-and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Feeling aggrieved, the convict Bachan Lal preferred this appeal. However, Bachan Lal died during the pendency of the appeal and his wife Murti Devi has been allowed to prosecute the appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the accused was not to deal with the files of the complaint and had no role to play. It was also contended that demand of bribe by the accused is not proved as the complainant Bhupinder Singh PW-6 turned hostile. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on two judgments of this Court i.e. State of Punjab v. Krishan Kumar Bhandari 2003 (3) RCR Cri 423 and Ranjit Singh v. The State of Punjab 2003 (4) RCR Cri 496.

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently contended that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt as all prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused is fully proved. It was also contended that the accused was dealing with the files of the complainant and was to put up the same before the Collector and for doing favour to the complainant, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe money.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is correct that initially Bhupinder Singh stated that there was no demand of money by the accused when the accused told the complainant that he would get the theft cases settled. However, in cross-examination by the public prosecutor, the witness categorically stated that the accused had demanded Rs. 200/-as illegal gratification for helping the complainant in the theft cases and the deal was struck at Rs. 100/-. This happened three days prior to the trap, which was laid on 16.03.1998. The complainant has also stated that at the time of trap also, the accused demanded the bribe of Rs. 100/-which was accordingly paid to him. Statement of Bhupinder Singh complainant regarding demand of bribe at the time of trap has been fully corroborated by the testimony of shadow witness Hazura Singh PW-7. On taking into consideration, the statements of all the three material witnesses Bhupinder Singh PW-6, Hazura Singh PW-7 and Ranjit Singh Dhillon DSP PW-9, no room for doubt is left that there was demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused. Recovery of the tainted currency note of Rs. 100/-from the file which was with the accused stands fully proved. Hand wash of the accused also proves that he had accepted the bribe money. Judgments cited by the counsel for the Appellant are completely distinguishable on facts. Case of Krishan Kumar Bhandari (supra) was appeal against acquittal. Obviously in appeal against acquittal, there is entirely different consideration vis-�-vis appeal against conviction. Moreover in the case of Krishan Kumar Bhandari (supra), prosecution failed to produce the witness in whose presence, the bribe was demanded. In the instant case, prosecution has examined all the relevant witnesses. At the time of initial demand of bribe, nobody else was present except the complainant and the accused and, therefore, no other witness could be examined by the prosecution to prove the said fact. However, at the time of trap, Hazura Singh shadow witness was also present besides the complainant. Both of them have categorically stated about the demand made by the accused at the time of trap. Their statements inspire confidence and are sufficient to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the accused. Prosecution case is further strengthened by the recovery of the tainted currency note from the accused as well as from the hand wash of the accused as deposed by Bhupinder Singh PW-6, Hazura Singh PW-7 and Ranjit Singh Dhillon, DSP PW-9. The case of Ranjit Singh (Supra) is also distinguishable on facts. In that case, on appreciation of evidence, demand and acceptance of bribe was held to be doubtful. In the instant case, however, on appreciation of evidence, demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused stands fully proved.

It is also significant to notice that there is no reason why the prosecution witnesses would depose falsely against the accused. The stand taken by the accused in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the complainant had grudge against the officials of Irrigation Department on account of theft cases registered against the complainant and, therefore, the accused was falsely implicated, cannot be accepted because the theft cases were not registered by the accused. On the contrary, the theft cases were registered by some other official and, therefore, the complainant could have grudge on that account against the said official i.e. Junior Engineer and this could not be the reason for false implication of the accused.

Statement of Amrik Singh DW-2 does not inspire confidence. He even denied the recovery of tainted money. However, recovery of tainted money is fully established beyond doubt. Hand wash of the accused also proves that he had accepted the tainted money. There is also no document to depict that theft case against Amrik Singh DW-2 was fixed for 16.03.1998 and, therefore, presence of this witness at the spot on the date of occurrence is also doubtful.

The contention that the accused had no role to play in the case registered against the complainant also cannot be accepted. Kirpal Singh PW-5 categorically deposed that the theft case file Ex.PE against the complainant was being dealt with by the accused as Assessment Clerk. This statement was not even challenged in cross-examination. On the contrary, this witness stated in cross-examination that attendance and statement of farmer i.e. complainant was to be recorded by the accused. This circumstance further depicts that the accused had definite role to play in the theft cases against the complainant.

Bhupinder Singh DW-1 was shaken in cross-examination. He has stated that he had no personal knowledge if the files of theft cases were kept by the dealing clerk or were to be produced by the dealing clerk before the Collector. This witness did not even know if the accused was dealing Clerk attached with the Collector. Moreover, Amarjit Singh Sohi DW-3 has also deposed in examination-in-chief itself that the accused was to put up the relevant case before him for decision. Thus it cannot be said that the accused had no role to play in the decision of theft cases which were pending against the complainant.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction which is accordingly affirmed. As regards quantum of sentence, in view of death of the convict, the said question has become futile.

As a necessary upshot, I find no merit in the instant criminal appeal which is accordingly dismissed.