Imam-Ur-Rahman vs State of Punjab

K.C. Gupta, J.

Devinder Singh is the complainant while Ravtas Kumar is the shadow witness and further PW Sardul Singh is the recovery witness. Devinder Singh has supported the prosecution version as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. Ravtas Kumar stated that he knew Devinder Singh, complainant and was resident of Dhuri. He next stated that on 22.1.1985, he had gone to Sangrur between 9 to 10 AM and Devinder Singh, PW, met him at the Bus Stand and told him that an employee of the Punjab Wakf Board was demanding bribe of Rs. 500, which he was not prepared to pay. He further stated that he knew where the office of Vigilance Bureau was situated and some members of its staff and then he took him to the Vigilance Office, Sangrur, and Inspector Baldev Singh was found present in the office. He further stated that Devinder Singh made statement before the Inspector, Ex. P10, which he signed after admitting the same to be correct. Thereafter, Devinder Singh produced five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each before the Inspector and the Inspector had treated those currency notes with white powder and thereafter the solution was prepared in a glass of water in which that powder was put and that colourless water turned into pink colour. However, that solution was thrown away. Baldev Singh, PW13, treated those currency notes with that powder and then noted down the numbers and handed over the same to Devinder Singh with the direction to hand over the amount to the appellant on demand. The said memo is Ex. P.12 and the five currency notes were Exs. P16 to P20. He further stated that about 11 A.M., they all reached near the residence of Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, in a Jeep, where PW11 Sardul Singh, Milk Vendor was joined as a member of raiding party. The Inspector told Sardul Singh the purpose of the raid. He next stated that he and Devinder Singh left for the office of Wakf Board and went in a Chubara where the appellant ws found sitting on his chair. The appellant asked Devinder Singh whether he had brought the money and Devinder Singh then replied in affirmative and he took out the five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each and handed over the same to the appellant, who put the same in his right side pocket of his pent. He next stated that he then gave the arranged signal to the police party, who was standing outside the office in the street and then the Inspector alongwith other members reached the office of the appellant and the appellant was secured. He further stated that the Inspector had prepared a solution of the Sodium Carbonate, which was colourless and then the hands of the appellant were got washed in it and that solution turned into pink colour, which was put in a nip, Ex. P.14 and was duly sealed with the seal of the Inspector. He further stated that thereafter the search of the appellant was taken and 500/ currency notes with the denomination of Rs. 100/ each were recovered from the right side pocket of the pent of the appellant and the numbers of those currency notes were compared with the numbers noted in the memo and the same tallied and then the pent of the appellant was got removed and the pocket was reversed and was put in the fresh solution of sodium carbonate and the colour of that solution also turned into pink and the said solution was put in a nip, Ex. P.22 and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.23 after making it into a sealed parcel. The pent was also taken into possession by the Inspector vide memo Ex. P.24. He further stated that the hand wash solution, Ex. P.14 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.15 attested by him and other witnesses. He next stated that on the personal search of the appellant Rs. 892/ and one wrist watch were recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.25. The recovery of the amount has been also supported by PW11 Sardul Singh and PW13 Baldev Singh, Inspector (now DSP). It has not been shown that Devinder Singh, Ravtas Kumar and Sardul Singh are inimical to the appellant. Ravtas Kumar and Sardul Singh cannot be dubbed as chance witnesses. In fact, there is nothing to disbelieve their sworn testimony. From the evidence of PW9 Devinder Singh and PW12 Ravtas Kumar, it is conclusively proved that the appellant had demanded the amount of Rs. 500/ and the same was paid to him on demand as bribe as consideration for not allotting the plot in question to one Gurlal Singh.

Counsel for the appellant contended that the civil suit was pending regarding that plot in the Court and in those circumstances, the appellant was not in a position to oblige him and it did not appeal to reason as to why Devinder Singh, complainant, decided to pay Rs. 500/ to him but, thus, the factum of having demanded the bribe is shrouded in mystery. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel is not tenable. It is true that civil case was pending but the complainant had learnt that the appellant was going to allot that plot to Gurlal Singh, who was in possession of the same by cancelling his allotment. Certainly the complainant became worried and approoached the appellant who demanded the bribe. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural in it if the appellant had demanded bribe money. It is also proved on file that sanction to prosecute the appellant was given by Sh. Nasib Ahmed, who was the Administrator of Punjab Wakf Board in April 1985. He had given the sanction vide order Ex. P.4 after applying his mind. Of course, there are certain discrepancies in the evidnece of witnesses PW9 Devinder Singh, PW11 Sardul Singh and PW12 Ravtas Kumar but they do not go to the root of the case and in fact, such discrepancies are likely to occur in the case of truthful witnesses who were examined after a long time.

In view of the discussion above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the appellant. Hence, he had been rightly found guilt and convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and Section 161 IPC.

Counsel for the appellant further contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 27.1.1985 i.e. the appellant had been suffering the agony of the criminal proceedings for the last more than 18 years and as such, a lenient view should be taken. Keeping in view the fact that at that time, the appellant was a young person and had joined service only a few years ago, I take a lenient view and reduce the sentence of the appellant to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 250/ under Sections 5(i)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act; in default of payment of fine, he would further suffer R.I. for one month; to RI for six months and a fine of Rs. 100/ under Section 161 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he would further undergo R.I. for one month. However, both the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.

With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.