Joginder Singh vs The State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.—This is an appeal filed by Joginder Singh. It is directed against the judgment of Shri M.L. Mirchia, Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Jullundur, dated 4th March, 1974, by which the appellant has been convicted u/s 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He also stands convicted u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive sentences have been made to run concurrently.

The facts of the prosecution case are as under:--

Swaran Singh owned some land in village Nurmahal. He died leaving behind his widow Smt. Karmi, daughter Amarjit Kaur and son Dulla. Amarjit Kaur was married with Mohinder Singh (P.W. 5). She wanted the partition of the estate and with that end in view, on 1st July 1973, her husband Mohinder Singh, appellant, who has been posted as a Patwari at Nurmahal. He requested him that a copy of Jamabandi be given to him. The appellant demanded Rs. 50/- from him for supplying him a copy of Jamabandi. Mohinder Singh again contacted him on 5th July 1973 in the Patwarkhana and enquired from him if the copy of the Jamabandi had been prepared. The appellant told him that the same was ready but his usual fee was Rs. 50/-. On the following day, Mohinder Singh approached Shri Balwant Rai Sood, Vigilance Inspector (P. W. 9) and informed him that the appellant was demanding a bribe of Rs. 50/- from him. He recorded his statement, Exhibit P. 6, to that effect and also drew up memo. Exhibit P. 7, pertaining to the handing over of 5 currency notes each of Rs. 10/-, after applying phenolphthalien powder, to Mohinder Singh, giving the numbers and other particulars of the currency notes in the said memo. This memo was drawn up in the presence of Manraj Singh (P.W. 6). On the basis of the statement, Exhibit P. 6, of Mohinder Singh, the First Information Report, Exhibit P. 1, was registered at Police Station Nurmahal.

According to the trap devised it was settled that the five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each would be delivered by Mohinder Singh to the appellant. Manraj Singh would accompany him as a shadow witness and Greesh Kumar (P.W. 7) and Shri Balwant Rai Sood would stand behind at some distance from the appellant and watch the signal of passing of the bribe. It is stated that Mohinder Singh handed over the treated five currency notes to the appellant in the lane while the latter was coming from the Patwarkhana. The appellant kept the tainted money in the left side pocket of his shirt. He gave copies of Jamabandi, Exhibits P. 4 and 5 to Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh save the pre-arranged signal and the Vigilence Inspector, Balwant Rai Sood caught hold of the appellant in front of the shop of Ram Murti, (P.W. 8). Balwant Rai Sood disclosed his identity to the appellant and offered his search to him and thereafter the Inspector searched the person of the appellant and recovered the treated five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/-each from the left side pocket of the shirt worn by him. He tallied the numbers of the currency notes with the numbers given in the Memo. Exhibit P. 7. The appellant was asked to dip his hands in the solution of Sodium carbonate and it turned pink. The bottle containing pink solution, Exhibit M.O. 1, and the currency notes, Exhibits M.O. 2 to M.O. 6, were taken into possession vide Memo., Exhibit P. 9. The Inspector prepared site plan. Exhibit P. 11 of the place of occurrence. He obtained sanction, Exhibit P. 2, for the prosecution of the appellant from Shri Ram Gopal, the then District Magistrate, Jullundur. After the completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned.

In his statement u/s 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant admitted having worked as a Patwari, Halqa Nurmuhal during the days of this occurrence, but he gave his own version as under:--

I am innocent. Mohinder Singh has falsely involved me in a false case of bribe. He had grudge against me. Hansa son of Basanta had agreed to sell his share of the land to Malkiat Singh son of Bawa Singh. Mohinder Singh did not wish this sale to be implemented. I and Karnail Singh had arranged from the sale from Hansa to Malkiat Singh.

In defence, the appellant examined Malkiat Singh (D.W. 1), Hansa (D.W. 2) and Karnail Singh (D.W. 3). He also tendered a copy of judgement, Exhibit D. 1.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Mohinder Singh (P.W 5), Manraj Singh (P.W. 6), the shadow witness Ram Murti (P.W.8) and Shri Balwant Rai Sood (P.W. 9).

After considering the evidence of the parties, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant as indicated above. He has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

The plea set up by the appellant is that Mohinder Singh, complainant, had a grouse against him and he falsely involved him in this case. The appellant and Karnail Singh D.W. had arranged for the sale of land from Hansa to Malkiat Singh. Hansa (D.W. 2) had agreed to sell his share of land to Malkiat Singh (D.W. 1). Mohinder Singh, P.W. did not want this transaction to be through. Before examining the prosecution evidence, it would be appropriate to consider the plea of the appellant set up in defence and the evidence in support of it.

Malkiat Singh stated that he agreed to purchase the land of Hansa and for that purpose he contacted the appellant to get the copy of Jamabandi. The witness maintained that he gave the copy of Jamabandi to Mohinder Singh, P.W. He paid Rs. 100/- as earnest money to Hansa for the purchase of land from him. To the same effect is the testimony of Hansa and Karnail Singh. The learned trial Court has not accepted the evidence of the defence witnesses and for good reasons. The version of Malkiat Singh that he had paid Rs. 100/- as earnest money to Hansa without any receipt of agreement, cannot be believed Karnail Singh stated that Mohinder Singh had paid Rs. 1000/- to Malkiat Singh. I am unable to appreciate as to why Mohinder Singh should pay Rs. 1000/- to Malkiat Singh. Even if Malkiat Singh does not purchase the land from Hansa the same would not go to Amarjit Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh P.W. Further, it is nowhere suggested to Mohinder Singh during his cross-examination that be paid Rs. 1000/- to Malkiat Singh. It is not believable that Mohinder Singh would part with money without executing a document. The entry at Serial No. 398 of the Roznamcha, Exhibit MO/7, shows that Malkiat Singh had received copies of Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 from the appellant on 1st January 1973. The appellant being in possession of the Roznamcha, it was not difficult for him to make such entry to create defence for himself. No deed of agreement has been brought on record by the defence to show if any such bargain was struck between Hansa and Malkiat Singh. In these days of perjury it was not difficult for the appellant to procure such like witnesses who had no scruples to tell lies. Leaving the defence evidence apart, even otherwise the story put forward by the appellant is highly unnatural and smacks of fabrication. For the reasons recorded above. I have no doubt that the story put forth by the appellant is totally false.

About the demand by the appellant for the payment of money we have primarily the evidence of Mohinder Singh (P.W. 5), Manraj Singh (P.W. 6) has supported the prosecution case regarding the payment of Rs. 50/- to the appellant and about the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the appellant. Ram Murti (P.W. 8) is also a witness about the formation of the raiding party and the recovery of the marked currency notes from the possession of the appellant.

From the evidence of these witnesses it emerges that Mohinder Singh approched the Vigilance Inspector with the story that the appellant was demanding brife from him and then he produced the five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each before him, on which phenolphthalein powder was applied. From the evidence, it further follower that the party went to Nurmahal to contact the appellant at the Patwarkhana. It is stated that the appellant met Mohinder Singh, P.W. at some distance from the Patwarkhana and enquired from him whether he had brought the money. Mohinder Singh handed over Rs. 50/- to the appellant and the latter than gave copies of Jamabandi, Exhibits P. 4 and P. 5, to him. Maharaj Singh signaled the party headed by the Vigilance Inspector, who rushed to the spot. The Inspector disclosing his identity searched the appellant. During his search, the Inspector recovered treated currency notes of Rs. 50/-from the left side pocket of the shirt worn by the appellant. The evidence of Mohinder Singh appears to be wholly ture. It was not sugggested to him that he had a grudge against the appellant or had any other motive to falsely implicate him in this case. The evidence of Mohinder Singh finds support from the testimony of Manraj Singh and Ram Murti, P.Ws. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that Manraj Singh was a mere chance witness and as such no implicit reliance could be placed on his testimony. There seems to be no merit in this argument. Manraj Singh had given plausible explanation for his presence in the office of the Vigilance Inspector. He slated that he had gone to the Vigilance Office to make a complaint against the Patwari posted in his village as he was in the habit of accepting bribe. I see nothing unnatural about it. Ram Murit was a person, in front of whose shop the appellant was apprehended and the tainted money recovered. In this state of affairs, the presence of Manraj Singh and Ram Murti at the spot cannot be doubted. So far as the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the appellant, no blemish attaches to the evidence of these witnesses. They were cross-examined at considerable length but nothing was brought out from which an inference could be drawn that the story given by them was not true.

From the prosecution evidence, it is established that five currency notes, Exhibits No. 2 to No. 6 were recovered from the possession of the appellant. Since the appellant was legally entitled to receive Rs. 1.20 Paise as fee for two copies of the Jamabandi, so the rest of the money received by him was not the legal remuneration and by virtue of section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a presumption is to be raised that he accepted the money as a motive and not a remuneration as is mentioned in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The explanation given by the appellant is improbable and unreasonable. The words, "unless the contrary is proved," mean that a presumption raised by section 4 has to be rebutted by proof and not be mere explanation which may be merely plausible. In the instant case, the defence plea taken up by the appellant is not established to a high degree of probability, and, therefore, he was rightly convicted under both the offences by the learned Speical Judge.

For the reasons stated above. I find that the charge had been brought home to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed; the sentence being already minimum provided under the law. The appellant is on bail. He should surrender to his bail bonds and be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.