Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Balwant Singh appellant, a Canal Patwari, was convicted under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/; in default of payment of fine further R.I. for three months under the first count and to R. I. for one year under the second count by the Special Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated April 20, 1985. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this appeal.

Prosecution case is that Chanan Singh complainant along with his two brothers owned agricultural land in village Sadharanpur. Out of the said land, about 41/2 acres of his land was irrigated by canal water provided by Rasholi minor. There was a breach caused in the said minor by the rats and as a result thereof the water entered the land of Chanan Singh and also that of others. According to prosecution, the appellant was incharge of that minor as he was posted as Canal Patwari of Halqa Sadharanpur at that time. On November 11, 198 1, the appellant went to Chanan Singh and told him that he had received a telegram from his higher officer at Patiala to the effect that the breach had been caused by him (Chanan Singh) and for that penalty should be imposed on him. He further told Chanan Singh that he shall recommend 25 times of usual irrigation charges as penalty against him. In case, he does not want to pay the penalty he should pay Rs. 300/ as bribe. Chanan Singh tried to convince the appellant that the cut was not caused by him, but it was due to the holes caused by the rats. The appellant was not convinced and insisted that Rs. 300/ as bribe be paid to him. The appellant further directed Chanan Singh to contact him the next day at about 2/3 P. M. at Goyal Karyana Store, Patran, and should pay the bribe money to him at that place.

Chanan Singh did not want to pay the bribe. He went to Vigilance Inspector Santokh Singh at Patiala on November 12, 1981, and narrated the above facts to him. His statement Exhibit PA was recorded. He produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each and two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each before the Inspector. Shivtar Singh PW2 was also present at that time. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and after the required formalities a raiding party was arranged.

The raiding party then proceeded to Patran Mandi. The aforesaid currency notes of Rs. 300/ were delivered by Chanan Singh to the appellant on his demand at Goyal Karyana Store. The appellant put the currency notes in the front left side pocket of his shirt. On the signal given by the shadow witness the remaining members of the police party also reached the said store. The appellant was apprehended and searched. On search, four said currency notes were recovered by Santokh Singh Inspector Vigilance from the front left side pocket of the shirt of the appellant. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the entrustment memo. Exhibit PB. After necessary investigation, the appellant was challenged, tried and convicted, as mentioned in earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution in support of its case examined Chanan Singh PW1, Shivtar Singh PW2 and Partap Singh PW 3 relating to the recovery, apart from the official witnesses.

After close of the prosecution case, the appellant in his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. No evidence was led in defence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Chanan Singh P.W. 1 complainant, Shivtar Singh P.W. 2, shadow witness and Partap Singh, P.W. 3, another witness from the public, have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Chanan Singh had given a different story and contradicted the prosecution version. Shivtar Singh PW2 denied his very presence and did not support the prosecution case. Partap Singh also did not support the prosecution case on material particulars. The learned trial Judge, while noticing that the public witness has not supported the case, relied upon the testimony of the Vigilance Inspector. It is mentioned in the evidence of Prem Chand PW6 and Tej Ram PW7 that the appellant was not posted in the concerned village on the date of the occurrence. The trial Judge, while accepting the testimony of three PWs, has given the reasons that the appellant might be not posted in this village but the complainant might have been misled by the representation made by the appellant that he could do favour to him by not imposing 25 times penalty for making a cut in the canal minor. The reasons given by the trial Court are not legally tenable. When the complainant, shadow witness and the other witness from the public, according to prosecution who were present at the time of the raid, do not support the prosecution case it will be highly unsafe to accept the testimony of the police officials alone to base the conviction. In this situation, when the prosecution''s own witnesses contradict each other, the sole testimony of the Vigilance Inspector, who will be certainly interested in the success of the case, cannot form the basis of the conviction. The trial Court was not justified in accepting the prosecution case and in convicting the appellant. Moreover, when the appellant was not posted in that village, the reasons given by the trial Court that the complainant might have accepted the word of the appellant that be was in a position to impose penalty are not justified. It is not the case of the complainant that the appellant was not posted in the village, but he accepted the word that the appellant can impose the penalty. The trial Court cannot give benefit to the prosecution by inventing reasons in support of its case.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to establish any case against the appellant. He is entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the judgment and order of the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant is set aside.