Khazan Singh vs State of Punjab

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

Khazan Singh has by way of this appeal challenged his conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/ in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Special Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated 3rd December, 1984. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

In the year 1981 the appellant was posted as a Revenue Patwari of Dhamoli Neelpur. Teja Singh complainant PW3 had purchased some land from one Shrimati Neolde resident of Village Dhamoli for Rs. 19,500. An agreement had been executed between Shrimati Neolde and Teja Singh PW and a sum of Rs. 5000/ was also paid as earnest money. On 3rd June, 1981, Teja Singh complainant along with Ram Karan grandson of Smt Neolde went to the office of the appellant to get a copy of the `jamabandi'' of the land in question. The office of the appellant was situated at Rajpura. The appellant asked for Rs. 300/ as illegal gratification for the supply of the copy of the jamabandi. It was agreed that Teja Singh would pay Rs. 300/ in the afternoon and that the copy of the jamabandi would be delivered to him. Since Teja Singh PW did not want to pay illegal gratification, he along with Jagir Singh PW4 went to the office of the Vigilance Department. Ram Karan did not accompany them to the office of the Vigilance Department. They appeared before Inspector Randev Singh PW7. Teja Singh PW made statement which is Exhibit PB. On the basis of the same formal first information report Exhibit PB/1 was recorded at the Police Station Rajpura, on 3rd June, 1981, at 3.30 p.m. Teja Sigh PW then produced three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100 each which are Exhibits P3 to P5 before the Inspector Vigilance who noted down their numbers and after treating them with phenolphthalein powder gave these back to Teja Singh PW for being passed on to the appellant. Jagir Singh PW was directed to act as a shadow witness. The police party headed by Randev Singh Inspector then went in a Government jeep towards the office of the appellant. Ram karan also met the police party at Rajpura. Jagir Singh and Teja Singh were directed to go ahead. The were followed by the remaining party. When Teja Singh and Jagir Singh PWs reached the office of the appellant, Radhe Lal DW2 was also found present there, Teja Singh PW passed on currency notes, Exhibits P3 to P5, to him. On the receipt of the money the appellant gave copy of the jamabandi to Teja singh which is Exhibit PI. The appellant put the currency notes into the front pocket of his shirt. Jagir Singh PW gave the agreed signal at which the Vigilance Inspector along with the remaining party came there. The Vigilance Inspector after disclosing his identity and observing due formalities searched the person of the appellant. Currency notes Exhibits P3 to P5 were recovered from his pocket. The appellant was made to wash his hand in a solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the same turned pink. That solution was put into nip Exhibit P2. The Inspector compared the numbers of currency notes Exhibits P3 to P5 with numbers kept. They tallied. The pocket of the shirt of the appellant was also washed in the same type of solution. The colour of the same also turned pink. That was also converted into a nip. Currency notes Exhibits P3 to P5, pens Exhibits P6 and P7, wrist watch Exhibit P8, nip Exhibit P9 and shirt Exhibit P10 was taken into possession by the Inspector vide memo Exhibit PK. The registers of the appellant were also taken into possession. Copy of the jamabandi Exhibit P1 was also taken into possession from Teja Singh PW. A photostat copy of agreement between Smt Neolde and Teja Singh was also taken into possession. The appellant was arrested and after obtaining sanction for his prosecution he was sent up for trial.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the prosecution allegation and came out with the following version :

"It is a false case. They have deposed falsely. I had inimical relations with Pritam Singh Nagra, Vigilance Inspector, as elder brother of Shingara Singh who is the brotherinlaw of Pritam Singh Nagra was murdered and I was challaned in that murder case. I was acquitted. Thereafter I was assaulted by Shingara Singh and the sons of Fauja Singh deceased. They were convicted and they filed as appeal in the Court of Session. They wanted to effect a compromise and for the purpose they along with Teja Singh and Jagir Singh and some other respectables came to me for compromise but I did not agree.

I am innocent, Nothing was recovered from me nor I demanded the money from Teja Singh. The money was thrust into my pocket by Teja Singh at the instance of Pritam Singh Nagra. I have been falsely implicated in the case.

In defence the appellant examined Kashmir Singh Revenue Patwar as DW1. He stated that he and the appellant worked in the same office and that they kept the record at one and the same place. He supported the version as given by the appellant. Radhe Lal, Manager, Personal Administration, who was given up as a prosecution witness appeared as DW2. He also supported the version as given by the appellant. DW3 Swaran Singh stated that the sister of Pritam Singh Nagra D.S.P. was married to Shingara Singh son of Ganda Singh. Her name was Smt Palan. Fauja Singh who was the brother of the aforesaid Shangara Singh was murdered and Khazan Singh appellant was prosecuted and convicted by the trial Court but was acquitted by the High Court. After his acquittal the appellant was given merciless beating by Shangara Singh and others and a case was registered against Shangara Singh and others. There was also civil litigation between the appellant and the aforesaid Shangara Singh. Gurbachan Singh DW4, a resident of village Dhamoli, also supported the version given by Swaran Singh. After tendering into evidence copies of judgements Exhibits DB to DD and copy of application Exhibit DE the appellant closed his case.

The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge to the appellant, examined Shir K.K. Dhir, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. He stated that sanction Exhibit PA for the prosecution of the appellant was accorded by order and in the name of the Governor of Punjab and that it was signed by him on behalf of the Government while posted as Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Revenue Department. PW3 Teja Singh is the decoy witness while PW4 Jagir Singh is the shadow witness PW5 Ram Kumar clerk of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, proved the appointment and posting of the appellant. PW6 Hari kishan Field Kanungo stated that a copy of jamabandi was normally supplied to the person in whose name land stood. He further stated that according to column No. 4 of Ujarat Register Exhibit P11, a copy of jamabandi was supplied to Ram Karan. He further stated that Kashmir Singh was also a Patwar and that he and the appellant worked in the same office. PW7 Randev Singh D.P.S. conducted the raid, recovered currency notes Exhibits P3 to P5, arrested the appellant and investigated the case.

Admittedly, Teja Singh and Jagir Singh Pws are related to each other. Teja Singh being the maternal uncle of Jagir Singh in brotherhood. The two other independent witnesses, namely, Ram Karan and Radhe Lal whose presence on the spot has been admitted by the prosecution have not been examined. On the other hand, Radhe Lal has appeared as a defence witness and supported the version of the defence. As far as the evidence regarding the demand by the appellant at the first instance is concerned, Ram Karan was the only other witness to the same. He has not been produced by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no corroboration as far as the initial demand for illegal gratification made by the appellant is concerned. After the introduction of section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, the status of a complainant in a corruption case is that of an accomplice. So, certainly some independent corroboration is necessary to bring the charges home to the appellant. The version of the defence that the copy was supplied to Ram Karan and not to Teja Singh finds corroboration from the entries in Ujarat Register Exhibit P 11. It stands established from oral as well as documentary evidence which has not been challenged by the defence that the appellant had a serious type of enmity and litigation with a very close relation of Pritam Singh Nagara Inspector who was one of the members of the party. The sister of Pritam Singh Nagra is married to Shangara Singh whose brother Fauja Singh was murdered and the appellant was one of the accused who was prosecuted for that murder. After his acquittal in the murder case the appellant was caused serious injuries for which Shangara Singh aforesaid and his other relations were prosecuted. Longstanding civil litigation was pending between Shangara singh''s sons and the appellant''s sons. This fact stands proved by the statements of Swaran Singh DW3 and Gurbachan Singh DW4 and also from the copies of judgment Exhibits DB. DC and DD. It is again in evidence that Inspector Pritam Singh Nagra was posted at Rajpura and that the village of Jagir Singh and Teja Singh PWs was just at some distance from Rajpura Gurbachan Singh DW 4 has stated on oath that he was introduced to Pritam Singh Nagra by Teja Singh and Jagir Singh PWs. Although Teja Singh and Jagir Singh PWs have denied the suggestion of the defence that they were acting under the influence of Inspector Pritam Singh Nagra but in the face of these circumstances such a possibility cannot be ruled out especially when the independent witnesses regarding the demand and recovery of Rs. 300/ have not been produced by the prosecution. So, in this view of the matter it cannot be said that the case against the appellant stands proved beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently he is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of both the charges. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to him.