Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Gurdial Singh appellant has challenged conviction under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Special judge, Gurdaspur, vide his order dated 14th May 1984. The learned trial Judge vide his order dated 17th May, 1984, sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under the section 151 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

In the year 1982 the appellant was posted as a Revenue Patwari in circle Rania. Parkash Singh complainant PW3 had taken some land from one Bua Singh on mortgage in the sum of the three thousand rupees in village Rania, It was a mortgage with possession. Bua Singh threatened Parkash Singh to take back th possession forcibly Parkash Singh approached the appellant and requested him to supply the copies of khasra girdawri and Jamabandi so that he could file a suit for injunction. In spite of the fact that Parkash Singh visited the appellant a number of time for the purpose the appellant put him off on one pretext or the other. Parkash Singh made a written complaint about that before the SubDivisional Officer (Civil). The Divisional Officer (Civil) marked the complaint to the Naib Tehsildar. The naib Tehsildar further marked it on to the appellant, Parkash Singh against contacted the appellant on 30th June, 1983, and asked him to do the needful but the appellant refused to do so unless he was paid Rs. 200 as illegal gratification. Ultimately the matter was settled at Rs. 150. Parkash Singh promised to pay the agreed amount on the next day. On Ist July, 1983, Parkash Singh went to Harbhajan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Gurdaspur and made statement Exhibit PB. On the basis of the same, formal first information report Exhibit PB/1 was recorded at police Station, Dhariwal, on Ist July, 1983, at 1225 p.m. Amar Singh PW 8 was also present with Parkash with PO at that time. Parkash Singh PW then produced three currency noted of the denomination of Rs. 50 each which are Exhibits P1 to P3. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Vigilance noted down the numbers of the currency notes and after treating them with phnolphthalein powder gave these back for being passed on to the appellant. Ujagar Singh PW4 was also joined with the police party and was directed to act as a shadow witness. The raid party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, went to village Rania in a jeep. The jeep was parked near a culvert. Parkash Singh, Ujagar Singh and Amar Singh PWs were asked to go ahead and Parkash Sing PW was asked to pass on the money to the appellant after he made demand for the same. Ujagar Singh was further directed to give a signal after the money had been passed on to the appellant. All these three witnesses went to the office of the appellant. The appellant asked Parkash Singh if he had brought the money, at which Parkash Singh handed over currency notes Exhibits P1 to P3 to the appellant. The appellant kept currency notes in an almirah. Ujagar Singh PW then gave a signal on which the raid party reached the spot, After disclosing his identity and observing due formalities Harbhajan singh Deputy Superintendent of Police apprehended the appellant. The hands of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the solution turned pink. Currency notes Exhibit P1 to P3 were covered from the almirah. The numbers of the currency notes were compared with the number noted down by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. They tallied. The solution was converted into a phial, Application Exhibit PA was taken into possession by the Deputy Superintendent police. He also prepared siteplan Exhibit PH. He arrested the appellant and after obtaining sanction for his prosecution sent him up for trial.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations, pleaded innocent and came out with the following version :

"I remained posted as Patwari Halqa Zaffarwal from 1979 to 1982. Bua singh of village Khunda is near relation of Parkash Singh PW Naib Tehsildar Kirpal Singh had arrested Bua Singh in connection with the recovery of taccavi from him. I was with the NaibTehsildar at that time.

Shri Darshan Sigh is the kanungo of my Halqa. He was earlier a patwari Halqa Kalyanpur. Parkash PW had agreed to purchase some land from one Teja Singh of Kalyanpur for Rs. 10,000/ and had advanced Rs. 2500/. Parkash Singh had filed suit against Teja Singh etc. in the court of Sub Judge, Gurdaspur. Parkash Singh PW had also moved application against said Darshan Singh before the PGO Gurdaspur that he (Darshan Singh) had intentionally supplied wrong khasra numbers of the land in connivance with Teja Singh.

About 15 days prior to 1/7/1983 Parkash Singh happened to meet me at Gurdaspur. I abused him for his making application against Shri Darshan Singh Kanungo. Parkash Singh nursed a grudge against me for the reason.

Parkash Singh had no occasion to ask for the copies of the revenue record and had never approached me. I never laid any demand for supplying the copies of the revenue record.

On 1/7/83 I went to urinate in the open towards the astern side of the patwarikhana room. On seeing me he shook his hands with me immediately. I asked him as to what was the matter and in the meantime a police officials came and arrested me. I raised hue and cry that I was innocent and was being falsely involved. The neighbours had also collected there. They also requested and made resentment over my false implication. Parkash Singh PW had managed to slip the notes in my almirah which was open.

In defence he examined Sulakhan Singh A.M.H.C. DWI. He brought the summoned, i.e., the note book pertaining to Police Station, Dahriwal. According to entry No. 37 in the aforesaid notebook, Amar Singh son of Nand Singh, caste Nai, resident of village Rania was declared a proclaimed offender in a dccoity case under section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code. There was a note in the aforesaid entry to the effect that Amar Singh was bound down under section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case of Police Station. Pathankot. DW 2 Vasdev Singh Record Keeper, D.C. Office, Gurdaspur, stated on the basis of the record that application No. 16 dated 22nd June, 1983, was filed by Bua Singh for redemption of land from Parkash and his wife Charan Kaur, that application No. 15 of 22nd June 1983, was filed by Bua Singh against Parkash Singh for redemption of land and application No. 14 of 4th July, 1983, was filed by Bua Singh for redemption of land from Kartar Singh.

The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge to the appellant, examined Shri J.S. Kalha, Deputy Secretory, Irrigation, as PW1. He stated that in the year 1982 he was posted as Sub Division Officer, Civil, at Gurdaspur. On 29th June, 1982, Parkash Singh son of Basant Singh lambardar of village Rania filed a written complaint, Exhibit PA, against the appellant who was posted as Revenue Patwari in Rania circle. This witness marked the complaint for necessary action to the Naib Tehsildar. PW2 Pritpal Singh SubInspector recorded formal first information repot Exhibit PB/1. Parkash Singh PW3 is the decoy witness while Ujagar Singh PW4 is the shadow witness. PW5 Muni Lal Sardar Kanungo, D.C. Office, Gurdaspur, stated that the appellant was appointed Patwari on 7th July, 1951, and that he was posted in Rania circle by the order of the Collector, Gurdaspur, dated 29th April, 1983. He also proved sanction Exhibit PF for the prosecution of the appellant. The affidavits of Harbhajan Singh PW6 and Daler Singh PW7 were tendered in evidence. PW8 Amar Singh accompanied the decoy witness to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He also witnessed the recovery of currency notes Exhibits P1 to P3 from the appellant, PW9 Yash Pal Patwari Circle Dhariwal stated that from the year 1977 to 1980 he was posted as a Patwari in Dhariwal circle and that village Rania fell in his jurisdiction. He used to prepare the jamabandi. He carried out the Khasra giadawari in respect of 13 Kanals 5 marlas bearing rectangle No. 15, killa No. 6/2, 15/1, 15/2, 16/1 and 16, but the, girdawari was prepared after spot inspection. He stated that the copies of khasra girdawaris can be delivered only after filing columns Nos. 2 and 3 of the khasra girdawarls, PW10 Harbhajan Singh D.S.P. conducted the raid, recovered currency notes Exhibits P1 to P3 from the appellant and investigated the case.

The first contention raised by Mr. H.L. Sibal Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the evidence of the decoy witness and the two shadow witnesses is not such which inspires confidence and on which implicit reliance can be placed to record the conviction of the applicant. Parkash Singh complainant PW3 has admitted in so many words that he had made an application to the Public Grievance Officer against Darshan Singh kanungo for the area and that fifteen days prior to the present occurrence the appellant and Darshan Singh kanungo met him and there was an exchange of abuses between the appellant and this witness, as the appellant complained to this witness that he was in the habit of filing false applications against officials. This witness has further admitted that he threatened the appellant that he would take appropriate action against him and would teach him a lesson Ujagar Singh PW4, a shadow witness in the case has admitted that he always joined raids whenever he was called by the police. Strangely enough, this witness happened to be present in the vigilance office at the time Parkash Singh and Amar Singh approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. These three witnesses are also discrepant on the point as to how Ujagar Singh joined the raid party. According to Parkash Singh PW, Ujagar Singh was already present in the vigilance office when he went there. On the other hand, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, has stated in no uncertain terms that it was after Parkash Singh and Amar Singh narrated the whole matter to him that he sent a Constable to call some respectable and the Constable brought Ujagar Singh. Amar singh, the other shadow witness, admittedly belongs to the village of Parkash Singh. He has admitted that he met Parkash Singh in a bus bound for Gurdaspur from Dhariwal by chance and that he had gone to see some relation which he ultimately never did. This fact stands proved by documentary evidence in the form of entries in the note book maintained at Police Station Dhariwal, showing that he had been declared a proclaimed offender in a case under section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to Police Station, Jamshedpur. It has also been proved by documentary evidence that Amar Singh was bound down in a case under section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This documentary evidence not only shows the character of this witness but also goes to show that he can with impunity deny patent facts. So, I find considerable force in the contention of Mr. H.L. Sibal that these witnesses cannot be branded as wholly reliable witnesses especially when the position of a complainant in a corruption case is that of an accomplice after the amendment of section 165 A of the Indian Penal Code.

Again, it is the case of the prosecution itself that the tainted money was recovered from the almirah in the office of the appellant, that at the time of the recovery the appellant had been taken out into the courtyard by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, and that he was not present in the room where the almirah was place. Again, it is in evidence that another sum of Rs. 415 was recovered from the pocket of the appellant at the time of his search. So, if he had received the money from Parkash Singh in normal course he would have kept the same in his pocket. So, the possibility that Parkash Singh with the help of the police placed the money in the almirah in order to avenge himself against the appellant cannot be ruled out.

Parkash Singh has stated in crossexamination that he had no mind to file any suit for injunction against Bua Singh, but strangely enough he has stated and the application filed before the Sub Divisional officer wherein he has levelled allegations against Yash Pal Patwari as well. On the other hand, if Parkash Singh needed copies of revenue record to defend the suit filed by Bua Singh for redemption of the mortgage he could possibly not ask for the copies from the appellant twenty days prior to this occurrence which took place on Ist July, 1983, because the first suit for redemption was filed on 22nd June, 1983. So, this anomalous position also throws a serious doubt on the prosecution case.

In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the case against the appellant stands proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently I give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to him.