Gurmeet Singh (since deceased) Through his L.Rs. vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is an appeal brought by Gurmeet Singh against the judgment dated 13.9.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Sangrur vide which he has been held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable u/s 7 read with section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") and the order on sentence of the same date, vide which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-for the said offence with further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months in default of payment of fine. It may be mentioned here itself that Gurmeet Singh, the appellant died on 21.4.2004 and this appeal is continued on his behalf by his L.Rs., named, Jaswant Kaur and Jaswinder Singh, widow and minor son of the appellant respectively. The case as registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala vide FIR no. 9 dated 30.1.1995 is as under:-

Gurmeet Singh, accused had been field worker of the Housefed and was posted in Barnala Circle. The complainant, who also happens to be Gurmeet Singh, is a taxi driver. He purchased a plot measuring 250 sq. yards at Sekhon Road, Barnala and applied for loan for raising construction of his house thereon with Housefed, Punjab, Chandigarh. Loan in a sum of Rs. 80,000/-was sanctioned in his favour. The first installment of Rs. 36,800/-was released to the complainant and utilizing that amount, he constructed the walls of the house. The complainant then went to the office of Housefed, Barnala for release of the second installment and handed over the required documents about utilization of the first installment to Gurmeet Singh, accused who had to forward those papers to the head office at Chandigarh. The accused did not do so. On 29.1.1995, the complainant went to the accused and met him. The accused told him that the installment could not be released in this manner. He demanded illegal gratification in a sum of Rs. 4,000/-from the complainant. The complainant, however, pleaded with the accused for reducing the amount claiming that he was a poor person and was obtaining loan for even constructing a house. The accused agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 3,000/-as illegal gratification on payment of which he agreed to recommend his case to the head office for releasing of the second installment. Gurmeet Singh, complainant told his brother Jasbir Singh in this regard, who did not agree to the proposal of giving bribe to the accused. On 30.1.1995, Gurmeet Singh, complainant went to the office of Vigilance Bureau, Sangrur and made a statement (Ex. PB) in this regard to D.S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Sangrur, which was sent to Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, where the case was registered. A raid was planned. Demonstration was given to the witnesses explaining them as to how the phenolphthalein powder works in a sodium carbonate solution. Amount of Rs. 3,000/- consisting of 30 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-each were produced before Ajmer Singh, DSP of the Vigilance Bureau, Sangrur. He took down serial numbers of the currency notes vide memo Ex.PC and applied phenolphthalein powder to those currency notes and handed them over to the complainant, Gurmeet Singh with the instruction to pay the amount to the accused on demand. Jasbir Singh, brother of the complainant was deputed as a shadow witness and was directed to give signal to the police party after the money changed hands. As per the plan, Gurmeet Singh went to the accused in the office of Area Manager of Housefed, Sangrur. On demand, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/-to the accused on which Jasbir Singh gave a predetermined signal to the police party headed by DSP Ajmer Singh, who reached the spot on receipt of the signal. Jagdev Singh, Area Manager, Housefed was called to witness the search through inspector Bharthari Singh of Vigilance Bureau. Hands of the accused were got washed in the sodium carbonate solution and the said solution, which was colourless, turned pink. The said solution was put in an empty nip, which was sealed with the seal ''BS''. From the front (secret) pocket of the trousers of the accused, the tainted money in a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, consisting of 30 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-each, was recovered. Jagdev Singh, Area Manager, tallied the serial numbers of the recovered notes with the serial numbers mentioned in the memo Ex. PC and found the said currency notes to be the same, whose particulars were mentioned in Ex. PC. The concealed (secret) pocket of the pant of the accused was also dipped in sodium carbonate solution and the colourless liquid turned light pink which was also transferred in an empty nip and sealed with the seal ''BS''. The trousers of the accused were given the shape of parcel and sealed with the same seal. The trousers of the accused and the sealed nips containing light pink liquid were taken into possession by way of separate recovery memos. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The case property, including the tainted money and the articles recovered in personal search of the accused were entrusted to Bharthari Singh, Inspector, who deposited the same with MHC Gurcharan Singh, Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. The file of the loan case was produced by Gurbachan Singh, Inspecting Officer, Housefed, Barnala and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN on 1.2.1995. Appointment and posting orders of the accused were also obtained. After receipt of report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh and obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused, challan was prepared and presented against the accused in the court.

Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 7 read with section 13 of the Act against the accused vide orders dated 18.1.1997. The accused pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial.

The prosecution has examined nine witnesses at the trial in support of its case and had tendered the report of FSL in the evidence. The prosecution gave up a few witnesses as unnecessary and closed its evidence. The accused was examined in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating prosecution evidence was put to him in the shape of questions and he has denied the truth of the same. He has pleaded false implication stating that Gurmeet Singh, complainant wanted to get loan on incomplete papers and as he was not completing the formalities, an altercation took place between him and the complainant. He has stated that for this reason, the complainant bore a grudge against him and conniving with the police, he has falsely implicated him in this case. He has denied anything to have been recovered from him in the raid. It was also stated by him that the police completed all the formalities using force upon him. He has also added that Jagdev Singh, Area Manager was also inimical towards him. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence.

Hearing learned public prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the defence, learned Special Judge, Sangrur found the prosecution to have succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 7 read with section 13 of the Act vide judgment dated 13.9.2001. Finding him guilty of the said offence and convicted him thereunder, learned Special Judge, Sangrur heard the parties on quantum of sentence on the same date and awarded the sentence detailed as above to the convict.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on sentence, Gurmeet Singh brought this appeal, which is continued by his L.Rs. after his death with the leave of the court vide orders dated 6.12.2010.

I have heard Mr. S.K.Bawa, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. I have gone through the record carefully.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the complainant, examined as PW-2, neither memo of handing over the money to him nor the memo of demonstration was prepared. According to him, the statement of the complainant, Gurmeet Singh recorded as PW-2 is quite shaky. He has further submitted that his brother Jasbir Singh, who was asked to follow the complainant as a shadow witness, has completely failed to support the prosecution version while appearing as PW-6. According to him, though he was cross-examined at length by the prosecution, yet nothing favourable to the prosecution could come out in his cross-examination. He has further submitted that Jagdev Singh (PW-7) was incharge of the area office, Housefed, Sangrur. According to him, he was inimical to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is not believable regarding demand because in the FIR, Gurmeet Singh, the complainant has stated that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 4,000/-from him as bribe for sending his papers to the head office but while appearing as PW-2, he has stated that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from him.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the judgment of conviction is supported by valid reasons. According to him, Gurmeet Singh, the complainant has no reason to falsely implicate the complainant. He has further submitted that the appellant has admitted in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the file for release of the second installment of loan was with him. He has further submitted that the evidence of demand comes in the statement of the complainant and the fact that Jasbir Singh had turned hostile would not affect the case of the prosecution.

There is no denial to the fact that Jasbir Singh, the shadow witness, who happened to be brother of the complainant, Gurmeet Singh has failed to support the prosecution case. The role of a shadow witness was just to inform the raiding party waiting outside the office of the accused that the tainted money has changed hands. Though, the complainant, Gurmeet Singh (PW-2) has also made a shaky statement, yet he has supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. Before I proceed further, I have to see if Gurmeet Singh complainant had any motive to falsely involve the appellant in a case of this nature.

It has been suggested to the complainant that he did not complete the formalities for getting the loan. It is also suggested to him that he has been pressurizing the accused for release of installment of the loan. It is strange to note that it is also suggested to the complainant that no application was submitted by him to the accused. The suggestions made on behalf of the accused to the complainant are further to the effect that at this point, the complainant had an altercation with the accused and on account of that grudge, he has falsely implicated him in this case.

The loan had been sanctioned by the head office of Housefed located at Chandigarh. The appellant being field worker was required to verify the utilization of the first installment before forwarding the papers for release of the second installment. This was necessary for preventing mis-utilization of the loan. The appellant was not to release the loan and his role was, therefore, to verify the fact of utilization of the first installment for the purpose for which it was granted and to forward the papers, if they were complete for release of the second installment. All the suggestions put to the complainant, Gurmeet Singh are not only vague but are nowhere near the aforesaid situation. If the complainant had not completed the formalities for getting the loan, it should have been specifically suggested to him as to what was that formality, which was not complied with by the complainant.

It is a case where the personal search of the appellant was conducted in the presence of Jagdev Singh, the Area Manager of Housefed, Sangrur. He has appeared as PW-7 and has stated about the search. He has, though, tried to make a conflicting statement by saying that when he reached the office of the appellant he found his hands tied with a cloth at his back, which is not the case of the prosecution, yet this does not touch the material aspect of the case which relates to the recovery of the tainted money from the hidden pocket of the trousers of the accused as also the washing of the said hidden pocket of the trousers in sodium carbonate solution which turned pinkish. Now, this Jagdev Singh has also tried to be painted as a person inimically disposed towards the appellant. It is suggested to him in his cross-examination that he had strained relations with the accused. The witness has denied the said suggestion. No importance could be attached to such a suggestion in the absence of suggestion of specific reason for strained relations and of any inimical act of the witness towards the appellant. The suggestion put to Jagdev Singh of having strained relations is, therefore, a very vague suggestion.

Having found that Jagdev Singh has no reason to make a false statement against his field worker, it is in his evidence that the amount of Rs. 3,000/-was found in the hidden pocket of the trousers of the accused and that he and the DSP tallied the particulars of those currency notes with the particulars of the currency notes mentioned in the memo, entrusted to the complainant with the direction to hand over those notes to the accused on demand. He also spoke about washing of hidden pocket of the trousers of the accused in sodium carbonate solution which turned pinkish. This statement of Jagdev Singh corroborates the statement of complainant, Gurmeet Singh. The statement of Ajmer Singh, DSP, (PW-8), the investigating officer of the case on the other hand also supports his statement.

Two submissions as made by learned counsel for the appellant are required to be noticed and analysed. The first is that neither memo of handing over the money to the complainant nor memo of demonstration was prepared. The second submission is that the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 4,000/-in the FIR to have been demanded as bribe by the appellant but appearing as PW-2, he has stated that he demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him for this job.

The complainant is a taxi driver and his level of mental development can very well be assumed. He has, though, stated that the memo of handing over the currency notes or the demonstration memo were prepared, yet he was not sure about the preparation of those documents. He was permitted to be cross-examined by the State and after some facts were suggested to him, he started making the statement of his own and stated that the memos had been prepared.

If the amount of Rs. 3,000/-was brought by the complainant and he had handed over the same to the DSP and the DSP had applied phenolphthalein powder to those currency notes and gave them to the complainant after telling him about the procedure to be adopted in the case, it cannot be believed that the memo of handing over the currency notes and demonstration memo would not have been prepared. Even if, those documents were not prepared that would hardly make any adverse impact upon the prosecution case. The statement of Gurmeet Singh (PW-2) is duly corroborated by Ajmer Singh, DSP. Nothing has been suggested to Ajmer Singh, DSP with regard to preparation of these memos. The circumstances show that out of his ignorance, Gurmeet Singh made a statement in his examination-in-chief regarding non preparation of the memos and the defence tried to take benefit of this statement.

There can be a mistake on the part of the complainant about the amount, which was demanded from him by the accused. Mere saying in some unguarded moment that a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was asked from him by the accused would not make any difference to the credibility of the case. The complainant has corrected himself by saying that the amount demanded from him was Rs. 4,000/-and his statement to the effect that a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was demanded from him can only be taken as a mistake of which no benefit goes to the appellant. The amount which was agreed to be paid between the complainant and the accused is Rs. 3,000/-and there is no variation in the said amount. The complainant paid this amount after the accused asked him as to whether he had brought this amount. This question itself amounts to demand of the bribe. In these circumstances, failure of Jasbir Singh to support the prosecution case and some variations in the statement of the complainant would not make the prosecution case doubtful. I find that learned trial court has for valid reasons reached the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. Consequently, I find no reason to differ from the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial court. Therefore, the judgment of conviction of the appellant is upheld. Since the appellant has already died, the order on sentence calls for no comments. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.