Hem Raj vs State of Punjab

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

This appeal arises out of the following facts :

The accused Hem Raj was working as a Pharmacist in the Rural Dispensary, Jandoke. On 5th February, 1986, the complainant Rachhpal Singh PW6 went to the accused in the dispensary for treatment, on which the accused demanded Rs. 100/ to look after him. The complainant, however, showed his inability to pay the amount and the bargain was struck at Rs. 40/, which were agreed to be paid on the next day. The complainant, thereafter, met Jagtar SinghPW.7 and informed him about the demand of bribe and they decided to refer the matter to the Vigilance Department. The next day, Rachhpal Singh and Jagtar Singh came to Faridkot and met Vigilance Inspector Baldev SinghPW.9, who recorded the statement of Rachhpal Singh Ex.PH. The complainant also gave two currency notes of Rs. 20/ each to the Inspector, who smeared those currency notes with Phenolphthalein powder and returned the same to him. The raiding party then left the office and joined one Sukhvarsh KumarPW8 an employee of the Public Health Department, Faridkot as one of the members of the party. They then went to village Jandoke and to the dispensary to deliver the amount to the accused on demand. The accused was sitting outside the door of the dispensary and he asked for the payment of bribe money and the same was handed over to him. The accused took the money and put the same in the plastic dabba lying on his table and then started writing the prescription for the complainant. On a signal being given by Jagtar SinghPW.7, the raiding party reached the spot and apprehended the accused. The Vigilance Inspector disclosed his identity and got recovered the two currency notes of Rs. 20/ each from the dabba Ex.P.3 and after tallying their numbers with the numbers written in the memos Ex.PJ and Ex.PK, the same were taken into possession. The Inspector also prepared a solution of sodium carbonate in a glass tumbler in which both the hands of the accused were got washed and the solution turned pink in colour. This too was taken into possession along with various other items relevant to the prosecution. After completion of the investigation, charge was framed against the accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined Baldev RajPW.1, who proved the sanction for the prosecution of the accused, Janak RajPW.2 who proved the appointment of the accused as Pharmacist and his posting order in village Dispensary Jandoke, the complainant Rachhpal SinghPW.6, the shadow witness Jagtar SinghPW.7, Sukhvarsh Kumar, PW.8 who corroborated the statements of the two earlier witnesses in all material particulars and the Vigilance Inspector Sh. Baldev SinghPW.9.

When examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations made against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case by Rachhpal Singh and Jagtar Sigh, who were inimical towards him.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the statements of the three material witnesses that is Rachhpal SinghPW.6, Jagtar SinghPW.7 and Sukhvarsh KumarPW.8 were similar in material particulars and the discrepancies if at all, were trivial and to be ignored; that the fact that the complainant had chosen to approach the Vigilance Inspector, Faridkot in preference to the Vigilance Inspector, Muktsar, which admittedly had jurisdiction over the area of village Jandoke, was not a factor detrimental to the prosecution as there was no evidence to indicate that Baldev Singh Vigilance InspectorPW.9 was, in any way, inimical to the accused or favourably disposed in favour of the complainant party; that the applications allegedly made by Jagtar SinghPW.7 seeking transfer of the accused from village Jandoke to some other place and brought on record as Exhibits DB, DC and DD, were not connected with Jagtar Singh despite the fact that Gian Parkash Sharma, a Document Expert had been examined as DW2; that the suggestion made to the complainant that various other persons including Pal Singh and Gurnam Singh had been present at the time of the raid did not advance the case of the defence as they had not been produced as defence witnesses; that the corroboration was provided by the fact that the solution of sodium carbonate turned pink when the hands of the accused were washed and having held as above, convicted and sentenced him as under :

U/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ in default thereof undergo further R.I. for six months;

U/S 161 of IPC to undergo R.I. for one year.

Hence this appeal.

It has been argued by Mr. Ghai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this appeal that it had come in the evidence of the complainant Rachhpal SinghPW6 and Jagtar SinghPW7 that immediately after the raid, the accused stated that he had not taken any bribe and was innocent and this factor clearly indicated the truthfulness of the defence version as given in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have considered this argument and find that it lacks merit. It is but natural for an accused apprehended in a case to make a statement in his own favour.

It has then been argued by Mr. Ghai that the money had been recovered from the dabba and not from the person of he accused and this did indicate that the money had been planted without the knowledge of the accused.

This argument too is without merit. It is to be noted that there is no allegation whatsoever that Rachhpal SinghPW.6 was, in any way, inimical to the accused and the animosity that has been suggested, was only with PW.7 Jagtar Singh, the shadow witness. It is equally relevant that not a word has been said with regard to any kind of animosity with Sukhvarsh KumarPW8 who belonged to another department and was a Govt. employee and a fully independent witness. The statements of the three witnesses find corroboration from the evidence of PW9 Baldev Singh Vigilance Inspector. The case set up by Mr. Ghai that the money had been planted without the knowledge of the accused is equally without merit for the simple reason that when the hands of the accused were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate, the same turned pink indicating that the accused had, in fact, handled the tainted money.

It has finally been argued that the evidence of Jagtar SinghPW.7 in particular was to be considered with suspicion for the simple reason that he had denied that he had ever made applications Ex. DB, DC and DD seeking the transfer of the accused from village Jandoke to some other place and these applications when read into evidence indicated that he bore serious animosity towards the accused. The trial Court while dealing with this matter, came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the aforesaid applications had been written by Jagtar Singh or at his behest and further that the statement of Gian Parkash SharmaDW.2 Handwriting Expert also indicated that he too was not sure about his admitted handwriting and signatures on the disputed applications. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the case against the accused stands proved in the manner indicated above.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed.