Gurnam Singh vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.—Accused Gurnam Singh having been convicted and sentenced by learned Special Judge, Patiala vide judgment and order

dated 22.3.2003 has filed the instant second appeal. The Appellant stands convicted u/s 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in

short, the Act) and also u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and

to pay fine of Rs 1500/-and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the two sentences but both

the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case may be narrated as under:

On 30.7.1997, complainant Angrej Singh Virk gave application Ex. PA to the police alleging that the accused, a Constable in Punjab Police, was

posted with Inspector General of Police Zone-I, Patiala in October, 1996. The complainant approached the accused for recruitment as Assistant

Sub Inspector (ASI) in police on sports basis. The accused promised to get the job on payment of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.

1,55,000/-in cash to the accused. However, the accused did not get the work done. In May, 1997 the accused returned Rs. 80,000/-to the

complainant and promised to return the balance amount within one week but the balance amount was not returned in spite of repeated demands.

On the other hand, the accused threatened to get the complainant pulled up through police. On the basis of this application, FIR was registered.

During investigation, statement of complainant Angrej Singh was recorded on 1.8.1997 u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,

Code of Criminal Procedure). The complainant added in the said statement that his son Simardeep Singh who had passed Bachelor of Arts

examination and was aged 21 years and had been participating in sports, was to be got recruited as ASI in sports quota. Facts mentioned in the

complaint regarding payment etc. were reiterated. It was clarified that the amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-was paid by complainant to accused on

5.11.1996 in the presence of complainant''s son Simardeep Singh, Shamsher Singh and Satnam Singh after borrowing it from Gurinder Singh and

Kamaldeep Singh. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded during investigation. Accused was arrested on 5.8.1997. After making

disclosure statement, the accused got recovered Rs. 62,000/-. Investigation was completed. On completion of investigation, accused was sent for

trial for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 8 and 13(2) of the Act.

Charge u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and u/s 420 IPC was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Retired SI Harbans Singh PW1 stated that he had recorded formal FIR in this

case on 30.7.1997. Constable Nachhattar Singh PW2 stated regarding transfer and posting of the accused constable from Ferozepur to District

Patiala. Parampal Singh Sidhu, Senior Superintendent of Police PW3 stated that he granted sanction for prosecution of the accused u/s 19 of the

Act.

Surinder Kapoor PW4 stated from bank record that Kamaldeep Singh had withdrawn Rs. 65,000/-from his bank account on 4.11.1996.

Kamaldeep PW10 stated that he had withdrawn the aforesaid amount from his account and lent it to complainant Angrej Singh who had asked for

it.

Harbans Lal PW5 is witness of recovery of Rs. 62,000/-from the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement but this witness denied the police

version and was declared hostile. However, his part cross-examination was deferred and thereafter he was given up as having been won over by

the accused.

Gurinder Singh PW6 stated that on 4.11.1996 his uncle Angrej Singh complainant requested for loan of Rs one lac. The witness encashed his

fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 1,06,190/-from the bank and gave loan amount of Rs one lac to the complainant. However, the witness stated that the

complainant had not disclosed the purpose of the loan. On this point the witness was declared hostile but the witness denied having stated before

the police that the complainant needed the amount for getting his son recruited as ASI. SP Singh PW11 stated from bank record regarding

withdrawal of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,06,000/-by Gurinder Singh PW6.

Angrej Singh complainant as PW7 has broadly stated according to the prosecution version.

Complainant''s son Simardeep Singh PW8 stated that his father had paid Rs. 1,55,000/-to Gurnam Singh on 5.11.1996 in the presence of

Satnam Singh, Shamsher Singh and this witness, for recruitment of this witness as ASI. He also stated that Gurnam Singh returned Rs. 80,000/-.

However, this witness stated that he could not identify the aforesaid Gurnam Singh.

Satnam Singh PW9 stated that on 5.11.1996 complainant had paid Rs. 1,55,000/-to a person for getting the complainant''s son recruited as

ASI but that person was demanding Rs. 4,50,000/-. The witness, however, refused to identify the accused and did not even look towards his face.

Without seeing the face of the accused, the witness stated that he could not identify him.

Bhupinderjit Singh Virk, Superintendent of Police PW12 stated about investigation of the case conducted by him while he was posted as

Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Retired SI Major Singh PW13 stated about the recovery of Rs. 62,000/- at the instance of the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement.

On conclusion of evidence accused was examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure to explain incriminating circumstances appearing

against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused while admitting his posting as constable denied all the said incriminating circumstances and

claimed to be innocent. The accused alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He never received any money from the complainant for

getting his son recruited as ASI nor he (accused) had the capacity to get recruitment done. He alleged that he had been falsely implicated in the

case.

In defence the accused examined three witnesses. Kuldip Singh DW1 stated from bank record that payment of Rs. 20,000/-vide cheque Ex.

D2 dated 5.8.1997 from the account of Kabul Singh was made to Gurnam Singh on 5.8.1997. Kabul Singh DW2 stated that his cousin sister is

married with the accused. He also stated that the accused was picked up by the police on 30.7.1997. He also stated that on 5.8.1997, one DSP

came to his residence along with accused and 2/3 other persons. The accused disclosed that he had been implicated in a false case and he had to

pay Rs. 20,000/-and demanded the said amount from this witness. The witness gave cheque of Rs. 20,000/- to the accused who got it encashed.

Jang Singh DW3 from the Telegraph Office stated about dispatch of telegram on 1.8.1997 at 19.12 hours by Harbhajan Kaur to Governor

and Chief Minister of Punjab and to Chief Justice of this Court.

Learned Special Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused as already noticed

hereinbefore. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has preferred the instant criminal appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the complainant has made material improvements in his version as stated in the

FIR. It was pointed out that it was not mentioned in the FIR that complainant''s son was to be recruited as ASI. It was also not mentioned in the

FIR that the amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-was paid on 5.11.1996. It was rather mentioned in the FIR that the amount was paid in October, 1996.

Presence of Satnam Singh, Shamsher Singh and Simardeep Singh at the time of said payment was also not mentioned in the FIR. Learned Counsel

for the Appellant also contended that Gurinder Singh PW6 has stated that the complainant had not disclosed the purpose of getting loan from him.

It was also pointed out that the complainant admitted that he did not know the accused previously. It was also submitted that the complainant

admitted that Satnam Singh PW9 was employed in the department of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also argued that

complainant''s son Simardeep Singh PW8 and Satnam Singh PW9 did not identify the accused as the person to whom the complainant had paid

the amount. It was also pointed out that Harbans Lal PW5 witness of alleged recovery of Rs. 62,000/-from the accused turned hostile.

On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that complainant has fully supported the prosecution case in all respects. His statement is

corroborated by Simardeep Singh PW8 and Satnam Singh PW9 regarding payment of the amount by the complainant. Prosecution version is also

corroborated by Gurinder Singh PW6 and Kamaldeep Singh PW10 who gave loan of Rs 1 lac and Rs. 65,000/-respectively to the complainant.

They had withdrawn the said amounts from their bank accounts as stated by S.P. Singh PW11 and Surinder Kapoor PW4. It was also pointed

out that there is no reason why the prosecution witnesses would implicate the accused in a false case.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Contention of counsel for the Appellant that the complainant has made improvements in his

version, although apparently attractive, is devoid of merit. The complainant lodged FIR on 30.7.1997 by moving application Ex. PA to the police.

Immediately thereafter, during investigation, statement of the complainant was recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure on 01.8.1997 and in

the said statement the complainant narrated all the facts in detail and therefore, it cannot be said that he has made any improvement in his version in

his testimony in the court. Certain facts were omitted in the FIR because the complainant had not mentioned all the details. FIR is not supposed to

be encyclopedia of all the facts. Necessary facts are to be ascertained by investigation. The Investigating Officer found that certain details were not

mentioned in the FIR and therefore, he elucidated the said details from the complainant by recording his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal

Procedure Consequently, it can not be said that any improvement has been made by the complainant in his testimony in the court.

Statements of Gurinder Singh PW6 and Kamaldeep Singh PW10 further corroborate the complainant''s version that he had paid Rs.

1,55,000/-to the accused. He had borrowed this amount from these two witnesses. These two witnesses had withdrawn the said amounts from

their bank accounts as stated by Bank Managers S.P. Singh PW11 and Surinder Kapoor PW4. Thus, there is complete link in the chain of

evidence proving prosecution case.

In addition to the aforesaid, the complainant''s version is inherently reliable and inspires confidence. The complainant has truthfully stated that

the accused had returned Rs. 80,000/-to the complainant. If the complainant were to implicate the accused in a false case, complainant would not

have stated about return of Rs. 80,000/-to him by the accused. Moreover, even the accused has not alleged as to why he has been falsely

implicated in the case. The complainant and the accused were not known to each other previously. There is, therefore, no reason for false

implication of the accused. Even the Investigating Officer would not have implicated the accused falsely being police official.

The fact that Simardeep Singh PW8 and Satnam Singh PW9 did not identify the accused in the court pales into insignificance because

Simardeep Singh stated that the amount was paid to Gurnam Singh. This witness was examined on 12.10.2001 i.e. almost five years after the

payment had been made. The statement of Simardeep Singh that he could not identify Gurnam Singh rather shows truthfulness of his testimony. It

depicts that the complainant or his son did not intend to implicate the accused in a false case. As regards testimony of Satnam Singh PW9, it is

manifest that he intentionally did not identify the accused. It has been recorded in his testimony that he did not even look towards the face of the

accused and without seeing the accused, the witness stated that he could not identify him. The fact that Satnam Singh was employed in the

department of the complainant is immaterial in view of nature of deposition made by Satnam Singh in the witness box when he refused to identify

the accused without even seeing towards accused. Consequently, it cannot be said that Satnam Singh was conveniently available witness to the

complainant.

The fact that Harbans Lal PW5 witness of recovery of Rs. 62,000/-from the accused turned hostile is also insignificant. The said recovery has

been proved by Bhupinderjit Singh PW12 and retired SI Major Singh PW13. Even otherwise, irrespective of the said recovery, prosecution case

is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the other evidence led by the prosecution.

Statements of Kuldip Singh DW1 and Kabul Singh DW2 have no probative value because neither it was suggested to prosecution witnesses in

their cross-examination nor it was stated by the accused himself in his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that he had to pay Rs.

20,000/-as bribe to the Investigating Officer and for this purpose he had taken this amount from his relative Kabul Singh DW2, as sought to be

argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant. This evidence is thus a clear afterthought by the accused. Similarly evidence regarding sending of

telegram by wife of the accused regarding his alleged detention since 30.7.1997 is immaterial. Habeas Corpus writ petition filed by the wife of the

accused had been dismissed as stated by Bhupinderjit Singh SP PW12. Complainant''s wife has also not stepped into witness box to depose that

the accused was picked up by the police on 30.7.1997 nor there is any other evidence in this regard.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned

judgment of conviction recorded by the Special Judge is affirmed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant prayed for reduction in sentence. The prayer has been opposed by the State counsel. I have carefully

considered the submission. Keeping in view the nature of guilt of the accused-Appellant and the amount involved and the purpose for which the

amount was taken and balance amount was not even returned, in my considered opinion, sentence of imprisonment for two years cannot be said to

be excessive so as to call for reduction.

As a necessary upshot, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The accused-Appellant who is on bail shall

surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.