Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Balwinder Singh appellant who was a Patwari, was brought to trial for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Food Corruption Act and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge, Sangrur, vide his order dated November 6, 1985, convicted the appellant of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ under the first count and one year''s rigorous imprisonment under the second count. The substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

Karnail Singh complainant was to obtain a decree from the Court regarding the transfer of ownership of the agricultural land at village Shadi Hari and as such he required a copy of the Jamabandi for filing the suit. On 4.1.1984, he approached accused Balwinder Singh Patwari and asked him to issue a copy of the jamabandi, upon which the latter replied that he would issue the copy on receipt of fee amounting to Rs. 150/. Karnail Singh complainant, however, told the accused that the fee demanded by him was too excessive, upon which the accused replied that it could not be reduced to less than Rs. 100/. Karnail Singh then made a false promise to pay the amount to the accused. Karnail Singh approached Karam Singh Vigilance Inspector and told him about, the demand of bribe made by the accused. The Vigilance Inspector recorded his statement Ex.PE, Karnail Singh handed over two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each Exs. P.5 and P.6 to the Vigilance Inspector who returned those currency notes to Karnail Singh after applying phenolophtalein powder to them. The memo Ex.PF containing the numbers of the aforesaid currency notes was prepared in this connection. The Vigilance party headed by Inspector Karam Singh consisting of Karnail Singh and Gurcharan Singh PWs then went to village Shadi Hari in a jeep where they joined Charan Singh in the party. Gurcharan Singh was made a shadow witness and was directed to hear and see everything going on between the accused and Karnail Singh and to give the signal by keeping his hand on the head after the money was passed on to the accused. Karnail Singh went to the accused in the Patwar Khana and asked for the copy of the Jamabandi. The accused asked him to give him the fee demanded by him and then to receive the copy and thereupon Karnail Singh gave two currency notes Exs. P.5 and P.6 of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each to the accused and the letter then gave the copy of the Jamabandi to him. The accused put the currency notes in the right pocket of his pant and Gurcharan Singh PW gave the signal by keeping his hand on his head, upon which the raiding party reached there and the accused was apprehended with the help of the two officials. Karam Singh prepared a mixture of sodium carbonate and washed the hands of the accused with that mixture on which the colour of the mixture turned pink. The Vigilance Inspector after giving his search to the witnesses, search the person of the accused and recovered two currency notes Exs. P.5 and P.6 of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each from the right pocket of his pant. The numbers of those currency notes were got tallied with the numbers mentioned in the memo Ex.PF. On further search of the accused a sum of Rs. 559.25 and a wrist watch were recovered from him and those were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. The pant of the accused was got removed and its pocket was dipped into a solution and the colour of the mixture turned pink. Karnail Singh complainant produced the copy of the jamabandi before the Vigilance Inspector who took it into his possession vide memo Ex.PM. The Inspector also obtained sanction for the prosecution of the accused.

The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused admitted the facts that he was working as a Patwari on the alleged day of occurrence; that Karnail Singh complainant came to him to obtain a copy of the jamabandi and that when he told him that it shall be ready after two days, he felt aggrieved on that account and false involved him in the case. He, however, denied the other allegations of the prosecution. Jagrup Lal and L.S. Rana were examined by him in defence.

On the material placed before it, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above the hence the appeal at his instance.

Before examining the prosecution evidence, it would be proper to consider the plea of the appellant set up in defence. The plea set up by the appellant is that two days earlier to his arrest, Karnail Singh complainant came to him and asked him to give a copy of the jamabandi forthwith, upon which he told him that it was impossible to prepare the copy of the jamabandi at that very time and it shall be ready after two days and that on that account the complainant felt aggrieved against him. He further pleaded that on the day of occurrence when he came to him to take the copy of the jamabandi, he handed over the same to him and got his signatures on receipt of fee which amounted to Rs. 0.60 ps. and that the complainant told him that he did not have the change and he would bring money from outside but instead of bringing change, he brought Shri Karam Singh Vigilance Inspector with him who arrested him. This version of the appellant remained an empty averment as it was not substantiated by any evidence. Therefore, the trial Court was right in its conclusion that the version putforth by the appellant was totally false.

About the demand made by the appellant for the payment of money, we have primarily the evidence of Karnail Singh complainant (PW.10). Gurcharan Singh PW.11 and Charan Singh PW.12 have supported the prosecution case regarding the recovery of Rs. 100/ from the right pocket of the pant of the appellant. Vigilance Inspector Karam Singh (PW.13) is also a witness about the formation of the raiding party and the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the appellant.

From the evidence of these witnesses it emerges that Karnail Singh appellant approached the Vigilance Inspector with the version that the appellant was demanding bribe from him and then he produced two currency notes of the domination of Rs. 50/ each (Exs. 1, 5 and P.6) on which phenolphthalein powder was applied. From the evident it further follows that the party went to the office of the appellant. It is said that the appellant demanded money from Karnail Singh and the latter handed over Rs. 100/. to him. The appellant then put the currency notes in the right pocket of his pant. Gurcharan Singh (PW.11) signalled the party headed by the Vigilance Inspector to rush to the spot, Vigilance Inspector disclosed his identity to the appellant a drafter completing the formalities searched the accused and recovered two currency notes Exs.P.5 and P.6 of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each from the right pocket of his pant. The pant of the appellant was got removed and its right pocket was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate and the colour of the solution turned pink. The currency notes Exs. P.5 and P.6 were put in an envelope which was sealed with the seal of the Vigilance Inspector and the signatory chit of Charan Singh PW. The presence of Gurcharan Singh and Charan Singh PWs. cannot be doubted. So far as the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the appellant is concerned, no blemish attaches to the evidence of these witnesses. They were cross examined at considerable length but nothing was brought out from which an inference could be drawn that the story given by them was not true.

From the prosecution evidence, it is established that the currency notes Exs. P.5 and P.6 were recovered from the possession of the appellant. By virtue of Section 4 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a presumption is to be raised that the culprit accepted the money as a motive and not as remuneration as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The explanation given by the appellant is improbable and unreasonable. The words `unless contrary is proved'' mean that the presumption raised by Section 4 of the Act has to be rebutted by proof and not by mere explanation which may be merely plausible. In the instant case, the defence plea taken by the appellant is not at all established and, therefore, he was rightly convicted under both the offences by the learned Special Court.

For the reasons stated, I find that the charges have been brought home to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and his convictions and sentences are accordingly confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.