Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj, J.

During the rainy season, when water in the canal is in abundance, Superintending Engineer (Irrigation) sanctions temporary rice shoots to farmers for cultivation of their paddy crop. One such rice shoot was sanctioned to the complainant Baldev Sharma (PW6) for being fixed at R.D. No. 41180L of Markanda distributry, for Kharif 1987 S.D.O. (Canal) got rice shoots sanctioned to various other people fixed but was not getting the rice shoot sanctioned to the complainant fixed on the excuse that his land under rice cultivation was located up stream and the water in the canal was getting scarce. On the complainant''s persistence, the S.D.O (Canal) is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 400/ by way of illegal gratification for getting the needful done. Feeling that the demand was excessive, the complainant approached the accusedappellant Jarnail Singh, Canal Patwari, working as Reader to S. D.O. (Canal). The accused also told him that Rs. 400/ shall have to be spent because the money is to be shared by him and the S.D.O. (Canal). The complainant then reported the matter to the Vigilance Inspector, Ram Singh, at 8.05 A.M. on 1691987. A raiding party was formed. Sanction for conducting the raid was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and the raid was conducted Baldev Sharma (PW6) made over the tainted money to accusedappellant. Shadow witness Sukhwinder, Singh gave the agreed signal to the remaining members of raiding party and thereafter, the tainted money was recovered from the accused lying in his lap.

On prosecution under section 5(2) read with Section 5(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed to be tried.

Vide its impugned judgment dated 1691988, the learned trial court convicted the accused under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)((j) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ for his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for his conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the convicted accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months. Feeling aggrieved against his sentence, the accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 3880SB of 1988, in this Court.

I have heard Shri H.S. Gill, Advocate, for the convicted accused appellant and Shri R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the State and have perused the entire material on record very carefully.

Shadow witness Sukhwinder Singh was not produced in the witness box. Only witness of the alleged demand for illegal gratification is complainant Baldev Sharma (PW6). In similar circumstances, it was observed by this court that in a case like this, to bring home the guilt to the accused, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant and had accepted the same in pursuance of the demand. To prove these allegations merely the statement of the complainant or the trap witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. It has been held by the Supreme Court in, Dharshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974, CLR 601, "that trap witnesses in a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being concerned in success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting the accused. "The same view is expressed in Prem Kumar v. State of Pb., 1976 CLR 366 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLR 93. It has been held in these cases that no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of trap witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses and on that account they spring from tainted source. Need for seeking independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and shadow witness was also emphasised in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 123 . It has repeatedly been laid down by the final court that the giver of the bribe is normally to be treated as accomplice and before recording the conviction of the delinquent government servant, independent corroboration of evidence of the accomplice, i.e., the complainant and the shadow witness is normally sought for if not as a matter of law, then at least as a matter of prudence.

Moreover, attribution of demand for illegal gratification in FIR No. 18 recorded in S.V.B. Kurukshetra at 9.30 A.M. on 1681987, was initially to S.D.O. (Canal), Shri Balbir Saini. It was only the repetition of demand, which was asserted against the accused. The relevant portion of the FIR reads :

"I am a resident of Gangheri. I do cultivation having passed my B.A. Examination. On 31st March, 1987, 1 had addressed an application through registered post to the Executive Engineer, Kaithal Division, Kaithal, for fixing new rice shoot. The sanction for fixing the rice shoot was granted having completed all the formalities in July, 1987. Several sanctions regarding fixing of riceshoots were granted together with my application for the same. But the SubDivisional Officer (SDO) Irrigation Department, Pehowa, had got the riceshoots fixed sanctions regarding which were granted later than mine. But he did not get our riceshoot fixed. Upon this, I met Shri Balbir Singh Saini, SubDivisional Officer, Pehowa, who said to me. "This is not the way to get the work done. If you pay Rs. 400 then your riceshoot will be fixed." I refused the proposal and came to Jarnail Singh, Reader, I told Jarnail Singh Reader that S.D.O. Sahib was demanding Rs. 400/ as illegal gratification. Thereupon, Jarnail Singh also told that if I paid Rs. 400/ as illegal gratification then he could get my work done. Whereupon, I asked him to take lesser amount as bribe but he told that Rs. 400/would be shared by them, i.e. the two officers and that share of one person was very meagre and that lesser amount won''t do. I accepted the proposal even though I did not want the same."

It is per chance that the SDO was busy with the Minister and the raiding party made the accused a scapegoat and sacrificed him at the alter of SDO. Then, again father of the complainant, in whose name the land stands "in the revenue papers could not get the riceshoot on account of disqualification of having breached the canal. Baldev Sharma (PW6) got Patta of land in his own favour just to overcome the disqualification suffered by his father, even though he was actually not cultivating the land and stealthily got the riceshoot sanctioned. Conduct, admittedly indulged in by the complainant reflects adversely upon his credibility. No reliance can be placed upon his assertion made in this regard without any independent corroboration. The fact of the matter is that even shadow witness has not come forward to support the shifting land in the matter of demand for illegal gratification; which when viewed with the legal infirmities aforesaid, renders the entire happening to be of doubtful nature and suspicious character. The convicted accusedappellant is given the benefits of doubt and acquitted.

Accused appellant is on bail. Bail bond furnished by his surety and personal bond furnished by him shall both stand discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.

JUDGMENT accordingly.