Hukam Chand vs State of Punjab

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

Hukam Chand son of Takhtu Ram aged 42 years Line Superintendent Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Barri Wala. stands convicted and sentenced as under :

U/s 5(2) read with section (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. R.I for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ in default. It further R.I. for three months.

U/s 161 IPC R.I. for One year

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered by the Special Judge, Faridkot, to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution briefly is that the accused appellant was working as a Line Superintendent Punjab Electricity Beard, Sub Division, Barri Wala, District Faridkot. Mohinder Singh complainant (PW 3), resident of village Jasseana, wanted electric connection for his tubewell and made an application of the same on 31.5.1979 therefore and the electric connection was sanctioned on 27.6.1979. He further alleged that he contacted the accused on 10.7.1979 for the purpose but the accused demanded Rs. 100/ as bribe to accomplish the job. The bargain was ultimately struck at Rs. 50/ Mohinder Singh PW 3 promised to bring the money on the following day. But, on 1171979, instead of going to the accused, he went to Gurdial Singh Vigilance Inspector (PW 6) and made a statement before him about the whole matter. The Inspector recorded his statement Exhibit PA. Mohinder Singh PW3 then produced three currency notes, two of the denomination of Rs. 20/ each and the third of the denomination of Rs. 10/ Exhibits MO1 to M03 respectively, before the Inspector who applied phenolphathalein powder to these currency notes. The numbers of the currencynotes were noted down by the Inspector and the same were given back to Mohinder Singh PW 3 in the presence of Constable Sukhdev Singh. The Inspector along with Mohinder Singh complainant PW 3, constable Sukhdev Singh and one Joginder Singh PW, went to Barriwala Town where the complainant was to pay the amount to the accusedappellant. Joginder Singh was sent as a shadow witness. Mohinder Singh complainant contacted. The accused and paid him the aforesaid currency notes. After the payment was made to the accused, PW Joginder gave a signal, as arranged earlier, on which Inspector Gurdial Singh PW 6 and Constable Sukhdev Singh reached the office of the accused. Shri Prem Parkash Kaushal S.D.O. was then called through Constable Sukhdev Singh. The Inspector washed his bonds in the plain water. Sodium Carbonate powder was then put in that matter his instance Shri Prem Parkash Kaushal S.D.O., then washed his hands in that solution but the colour of the solution remained unchanged. Hukam Chand accused then asked to dip his hands in that solution, but, in his case. The colour of the solution became light pink. That solution was Out in dip Exhibit M04.The accused was asked by the Inspector to hand over the currency note which he had accepted from Mohinder Singh PW3. The accused then took out the currency notes Exhibits MOI to M03 from the pocket of his bushshirt Exhibit M05 and handed over the same to the Inspector. The numbers of these currency notes were compared with those noted down in Memo Exhibit PD. The Inspector round them to be the same. The inner side of the pocket of the bushshirt of the accused was also washed with the solution of medium carbonate. The colour of that solution too turned pink and the solution was put in nip Exhibit M06. The currencynotes bush shirt and the nips were taken into possession, vide memo, Exhibit PE. Purse Exhibits containing cash of Rs. 10.1.28 was recovered from the personal search of the accused and it was also taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PF. On the basis of statement Exhibits PA of Mohinder Singh PW3, formal FIR Exhibit p/2 was recorded at the Police Station Sadar, Muktsar, on 11.7.1979 at 8.30 a.m.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant put up the following version :

"Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh, PWs are relations. I obtained police and other material from the Store on 28th and 29th June, 1979 for erecting the electric line to give connection to the tubewell of site. Mohinder Singh was pressing for making under haste to give him the connection thereupon, he even quarreled with me in the presence of one Roop Chand and he threatened me of my false involvement in some case. From 30.6.1079 to 8.7.2979. I remained on leave. Thereafter, I remained busy in my other important official duties, On 11.7.1979 Mohinder Singh alone come to my office when Balwant Singh Clerk and another of out office were present with me. He tried to put some money in the pocket of my bush shirt forcibly, to which I resisted. During the scuffle, some powder touched my hands and the pocket of my bushshirt. The currency notes fell down on the ground. The Inspector came in. The notes at that time were still lying on the ground. I, Balwant Sing and the other Clerk made a protest to him and told him that Mohinder Singh was trying to foist the money on me but he did not listen to me and planted the recovery in order to make his raid to a success. My relation with Shri Prem Parkash Kaushal S.D.O. were stained and as such,he has deposed falsely.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant produced Sant Lal Arora PW1 who proved the sanction. Exhibit PB regarding the prosecution of the appellant. PW2 Mohan Lal brought the files relating to the application of Mohinder Singh PW3 for tubewell connection as also the sanction therefore by Shri Prem Parkash Kaushal S.D.O. (PW4) PW3 Mohinder Sing is the complaint himself who related the whole occurrence. PW4 Shri Prem Parkash Kaushal was the SubDivisional Officer posted at the relevant time at Barri Wala Town. PW5 Joginder Singh was the shadow witness who was tendered only for prosecution PW6 Gurdial Singh Sodhi. Vigilance Inspector, investigated the case.

The accused appellant examined Shir Balwant Singh, U.D.C. (PW1). Punjab State Electricity Board, Barri Wala, who stated that Mohinder Singh PW3 was pressurizing the appellant to give electric connection at an early date while the appellant showed his inability to do so in a short time.

The first contention raised by Mr. Karmail Singh Dead, learned counsel for the appellant is that the Sanction Exhibit PB is not proper in the sense that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind fully. He pointed out that although Joginder Singh PW5 did not accompany Mohinder Singh PW3 to the Inspector at the time of recording statement Exhibit PA and marking of the currency notes, yet in the sanction order it is mentioned that statement Exhibit PA was made in his presence and the currencynotes were also marked delivered back in his presence.

The second line of critisim of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the named of witnesses of recovery have not been given in the Sanctionorder Exhibit PB although the word `witnesses'' has been used therein. He has cited Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 S.C.C. (Cri.) 926, in support of his contentinos.

A perusal of the sanctionorder Exhibit PB itself shows that the name of the witnesses, namely, Joginder Sing, Mohinder Singh and Inspector Gurdial Singh are mentioned therein. So, this contention f the learned counsel has no force at all. As far as the other objection regarding the presence of Joginder Singh at the time of recording of statement Exhibit PA Mohinder Singh PW and marking of currencynotes, is concerned, I do not think that it ditracts, in any way from the authentieity of the sanction. The sanctinoning authority has given complete facts in the sanctionorder and appears to have applied its mind fully. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant doesn''t not have any bearing on the facts of this case.

Another arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Joginder Singh shadow witness, was not independent witness in the sense that he belongs to the village of Mohinder Singh complaint. I am also not every much impressed with this argument raised by the learned counsel.

The statement of PW4 Shri Prem Parkash Kaushal, S.D.O. Punjab State Electricity Board, Barri Wala clinches the whole matter. He is an absolutely independent witness and is the senior officer of the same department to which the appellant belongs. Nothing has been brought out on record to show as to why this witness is supporting the prosecution case and deposing against the employee of his own department. He has fully supported the version of the prosecution on all material points. The statement of this independent witnesses fully corroborates the version given by the other PWs. namely Mohinder Singh PW3 and Inspector Gurdial Singh PW6. Thus, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant is well merited.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for reduction in sentence and submitted that the appellant after his conviction and sentence, is going to lose his job and his pension and gratuity would also be affected thereby. Thus, he contends that the appellant, in this sense, has already been punished. I find some merit in this contention of the learned counsel. Consequently, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant to six months from one year on both the counts. The substantive sentences of imprisonment would of course, run concurrently. However, the sentence of fine along with the default clause is maintained as order by the trial court.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.