Dalip Singh vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Dalip Singh appellant was convicted by Special Judge Ferozepur under Section 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling dissatisfied he has filed this appeal.

The prosecution case is that Dalip Singh appellant was working as a clerk in the Treasury Office, Ferozepur, and was deputed by the Treasury Officer to deal with the pension and gratuity cases vide order dated 16.9.1983 passed by the Treasury officer, copy of which is Exhibit PH. PW Balwant Singh''s father was a peon in the office of Tehsildar Ferozepur, and he died on 11.5.1982 due to striking of the lightning. The pension of Balwant Singh''s father was to be paid to Smt. Piaro, mother of Balwant Singh.

Balwant Singh and his mother came to the office of treasury officer, Ferozepur on 28.2.1984 with the gratuity papers Exhibit PK and met the appellant in connection with the pension of the deceased. He directed them to bring the clearance certificate from SubDivisional Magistrate, Ferozepur. After getting the clearance certificate, Balwant Singh and his mother again went to the appellant on 13.3.1984 and showed the clearance certificate to him. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification for clearing the papers. Balwant Singh and his mother again went to the treasury office on 14.3.1984 and met Tilak Raj Superintendent of the Treasury Office. They showed the clearance certificate to Tilak Raj who marked it to the pension clerk that is the appellant. They went to the appellant being the pension clerk. Dalip Singh appellant told them that whomsoever they may meet, their work will not be done unless they pay Rs. 100/. They went back to their village.

On 15.3.1984, Balwant Singh brought Budh Singh Sarpanch of his village along with him. His mother also accompanied them. They met the appellant at about 11.30 AM. He again asked for Rs. 100/ and Balwant Singh informed him that money has been brought and he should prepare the papers. The appellant asked them to sit outside and he will call them when the papers will be ready. Balwant Singh and others went out.

Balwant Singh was not willing to pay the bribe and he leaving his mother in the verandah, went to the office of Vigilance, Ferozepur. Budh Singh accompanied hi. Inspector Tara Chand met them in the office and Balwant Singh informed him that appellant is demanding Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification from him. Tara Chand, Inspector, recorded his statement Exhibit PL. Balwant Singh produced one currency note of Rs. 100/ denomination before Inspector Tara Chand who noted down the number of the currency not in the superdari memo Exhibit P.M. and after applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency note handed over the same to Balwant Singh. There was no other money with Balwant Singh.

According to the plan prepared Balwant Singh was directed to pay the amount on demand whereas Budh Singh was asked to act as shadow witness. Budh Singh was asked to hear the conversation between Balwant Singh and appellant and when the money is passed, he was to give a signal to the raiding party and the signal fixed was that he will place his hand on his head. A raiding party was organised. Balwant Singh and Budh Singh went to the office of the appellant. On reaching there Balwant Singh asked the appellant about the work and the appellant again demanded Rs. 100/ from him. Balwant Singh told him that he has brought the money. The appellant took them before the Treasury officer, where mother of Balwant Singh thumb marked the papers in the presence of the Treasury Officer and Budh Singh Sarpanch made the attestation. They had come back to the place where the appellant used to sit in the office. At that time one girl who was also working in the office was also sitting in the room. On demand of the appellant that as the work has been done, he should be paid the money, Balwant Singh handed over the tainted currency note to the appellant who put the same in the front pocket of his shirt. Appellant then handed over the papers to mother of Balwant Singh and after taking the papers mother of Balwant Singh and Budh Singh came out whereas Balwant Singh remained sitting with the appellant. After sometime Inspector Tara Chand and the police party including Budh Singh and Tilak Raj Superintendent of the Treasury office came inside. Tara Chand Inspector disclosed his identity and caught the appellant. The girl who was sitting in the room had left the room at that time. Tara Chand Inspector then got a glass of water in which some sodium carbonate was added. First hands of Budh Singh were got washed but the colour of the solution did not change. Then hands of the appellant were got washed in the solution as a result of which the colour of that solution turned pink. The same was put into a phial Exhibit P1. It was sealed along with the signatory chit of Tilak Raj and was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PN Tara Chand Inspector then offered his personal search and then he searched the person of the appellant and took out the tainted currency note from the front pocket of the shirt of the appellant. Tilak Raj PW was asked to compare the number of the currency note. The same tallied. The currency note was taken on to possession vide memo Exhibit PO. Thereafter again a glass of water was arranged in which similar solution was prepared. Pocket of the shirt of the appellant was dipped in that solution and the solution turned pink. This solution was put into a phial which is Exhibit P3. The same was sealed along with the signatory chit of Tilak Raj and taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PO. The shirt was turned into a sealed parcel and the same was also taken into possession. The appellant produced gratuity papers which were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit P5. Rough site plan Exhibit PU was also prepared. Sanction for prosecution of appellant was taken and after necessary investigation, appellant was challaned, tried and convicted as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

In support of the case, prosecution has examined Sewa Singh PW 1 who had proved the sanction Exhibit PA accorded by Shri S.S. Brar, Deputy Secretary to Government of Punjab. Finance Department PW 2 Karnail Singh Treasury Officer has proved that Smt. Piaro met him and she was identified by Shri Budh Singh Sarpanch and he then countersigned the documents Exhibit PC and PD PW 3 Dharamvir, Assistant Treasury Officer, has proved the appointment, transfer and the order by which the appellant was given the job to deal with the gratuity and pension cases PW 4 Radhey Sham proved certificate Exhibit PC issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ferozepur. PW 5 Balbir Singh had identified Smt. Piaro in the bank. PW 6 Madan Lal had disbursed the amount to Smt. Piaro on identification of Balbir Singh PW PW 7 Balwant Singh is complainant and PW 8 Budh Singh acted as a shadow witness. PW 9 Tara Chand Inspector had investigated the case.

After close of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication and had given his version which is as under :

"Balwant Singh and the mother Piaro came on the window of treasury office on 28.2.1984 and contacted me, when I was sitting inside the treasury office and I told them to bring the clearance certificate from the SDM to get the gratuity papers prepared, upon which Balwant Singh felt annoyed and said that there was no necessity of the said certificate as the sanction had already been issued by the Accountant General. There was exchange of hot words and thereafter, Shri Balwant Singh and his mother left the verandah of the office and he i.e. Balwant Singh again came with the certificate, he was again told that the dates fixed for gratuity work was 16th to 24th of each month and also that the certificate was not addressed to the treasury officer and was having no reference number of the letter of the AG Punjab. Again Balwant Singh felt very much annoyed and left the verandah of the treasury office after threatening me. On 14.3.1984, Balwant Singh again contacted me from outside the window of the treasury office and I again told him that he should have come between 16th to 24th day of the month and also that the certificate was neither addressed to the treasury officer not it showed that the same related to gratuity and that the same required rectification by the SDM Ferozepur. On this Balwant Singh got annoyed once again and left the verandah of the office saying that I have been putting him off on one pretext or the other. On 15.3.1984, Balwant Singh and his mother came on the window at about 10 AM and that day the writing over the certificate was there and it was written in hand and addressing the same to the treasury officer and gratuity was mentioned therein. I prepared the papers and sent them to the Pension Assistant. The Pension Assistant further sent the papers to the Superintendent and he sent the papers to the T.O. I directed Smt. Piaro to go to the Treasury Officer for identification. After identification, the papers were received back and the pay orders were issued and again sent to Treasury Officer for his orders and signatures. The pay order is sent to the Treasury Officer through Assistant and Superintendent. Then the peon of the treasury office, gave the same to the concerned person after calling his name outside the office of the treasury office. The entire work was completed at about 12 noon. At 1 P.M. the treasury officer left for Zira. After which I also left for purchasing the cement from the PUNSUP godown at Gobind Nagri Ferozpur City. After getting the cement when I came to the office at about 2 P.M. and was just about to park my cycle in the verandah of the treasury office, Balwant Singh tried to thrust money in my pocket, which I tied take out and in the meantime the Vigilance Inspector came there and apprehended me and got me involved in the false case, I never demanded any money nor I accepted any money from Balwant Singh or Piaro. General Public is not allowed to enter the office premises of the treasury office. A notice board to this effect stands fixed outside the office."

Jagdev Singh clerk PUNSUP was produced by the appellant in his defence as DW1. He had deposed that on 15.3.1984, he was incharge of the distribution of the cement in this office situated at Gobind Nagri, Ferozepur City. He had further stated that one Dalip Singh son of Gurdas Singh had received five bags of cement from him on that day.

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

Mr. R.S. Ghai, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no independent corroboration of the testimony of Balwant Singh and he being inimical to the appellant, his testimony is not sufficient to maintain the conviction. He has further argued that there is no evidence apart from the statement of Balwant Singh to show that the appellant had demanded the money. According to Mr. Ghai, the statement of Budh Singh who is a relation of Balwant Singh and belongs to his village does to provide the required corroboration to Balwant Singh. He has further contended that the circumstances of the case clearly show that the version given by the appellant is nearer truth and the appellant has been falsely implicated.

I have considered the arguments and I am of the view that the prosecution case is not free from doubt.

Admittedly, the testimony of Balwant Singh qua the demand of money by the appellant is without any corroboration from any independent source. According to Balwant Singh, the demand was made on 13.3.1984. Balwant Singh and his mother had gone to Treasury office on 14.3.1984 and had met Tilak Raj but the demand of money by the appellant was not mentioned to Tilak Raj. If the appellant had demanded bribe on 13.3.1984 then Balwant Singh normally would have talked to Budh Singh who came with him to the treasury office on 14.3.1984 but Budh Singh in his statement states that no talk took place in the village regarding the payment of illegal gratification. For demand of illegal gratification, the prosecution is dependent on Balwant Singh''s statement alone and instead of corroboration, the prosecution suffers from the infirmity, that is in the natural course of human behaviour, if the appellant had demanded money then Balwant Singh would have talked to Tilak Raj and Budh Singh Sarpanch. In this situation of the matter, it cannot be said that demand of bribe by the appellant is established.

There is no explanation why prosecution did not examine Tilak Raj who was admittedly joined in the raid and was present at the time of alleged recovery. He being the Superintendent of the office was the most natural witness and his non examination cast a doubt on the prosecution case. Budh Singh shadow witness does not belong to Ferozepur and is a relation of Balwant Singh. His testimony alone may not be sufficient to corroborate the version given by Balwant Singh.

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 witnesses 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.

Another circumstances which goes against the prosecution is that according to Balwant Singh before the payment of bribe, the appellant had prepared the papers and had taken to the treasury officer where his other had also singed. After the signature of the Treasury officer, nothing remained to be done by the appellant for which Balwant Singh might have paid the bribe to him. If any bribe was to be paid, it must have been before the preparation of the papers by the appellant. The sequence of the events as narrated by Balwant Singh, is not very natural and in the absence of any corroboration, his testimony is not convincing. It is very difficult to accept that Balwant Singh will pay the money if his work had already been done.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that in the absence of any independent corroboration of the demand of bribe by the appellant and the non examination of Tilak Raj specially when seen in the light of the fact ah Budh Singh the shadow witness is a relation of the complainant, the prosecution case is not free from doubt. In this view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence this appeal is accepted and he is acquitted of the charge.