Madan Lal vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.—By filing the instant criminal appeal, convict Madan Lal has challenged judgment and order dated 3.4.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Jalandhar thereby convicting the Appellant u/s 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- and in default thereof, to under rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Prosecution case in brief is as under:

Complainant Mehal Singh was in possession of 17 kanals land Criminal owned by Central Government. The said land was allotted to him. The complainant deposited Rs 34,116/- as price of the land. Accused Madan Lal was posted as Sales Clerk in the office of Tehsildar (Sales), Nakodar.The accused was to prepare necessary papers and to send the same to Sub Divisional Magistrate for execution of sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant. On 28.7.2000, the complainant met the accused and asked him to do the needful. The accused demanded Rs 3000/- as illegal gratification for the same. The bargain was, however, struck for Rs 1000/-.The complainant agreed to pay the same on 2.8.2000. However, on 2.8.2000 complainant Mehal Singh accompanied by Balwant Singh went to Amrik Singh DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar and made statement regarding the aforesaid demand. The complainant also gave 10 currency notes of 100 rupees denomination. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes and the same were returned to the complainant to give the same to the accused on his demand. Balwant Singh was made shadow witness. Necessary instructions were given to both of them.Demonstration was also given to them to depict that colour of sodium carbonate solution changed to pink on coming in contact with phenolphthalein powder. Dr. Sukhpal Singh, Medical Officer and Vijay Kumar (Superintendent, office of Civil Surgeon) were joined as independent official witnesses in the raiding party. FIR was got registered by sending statement of the complainant. Raiding party went in government vehicle and stopped outside the complex housing the office of the accused. The complainant and the shadow witness went inside the office whereas the Criminal remaining raiding party stayed behind. The accused told the complainant and the shadow witness that he would not accept the bribe amount inside the office. He took them to nearby country liquor Ahata where the accused demanded illegal gratification. The complainant gave tainted currency notes to the accused. Shadow witness gave necessary signal to the raiding party who reached the spot and apprehended the accused. On search of the accused, a purse was recovered from the pocket of his trousers. The purse contained the tainted currency notes in the outer pocket whereas in the other pocket with zip, there was also amount of Rs 4110/-. Numbers of the tainted currency notes tallied with the numbers recorded in the memo which had been prepared before the raid. Hand wash of the accused in sodium carbonate solution turned its colour to pink. Outer pocket of the purse was also washed in separate solution of sodium carbonate which also turned pink. The solutions were then sealed in separate nips. The purse, tainted currency notes and other amount were sealed in separate parcels. All the articles were seized by the police. Record was also taken into possession from the accused. Attendance register was also seized. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After obtaining sanction for prosecution of the accused and on completion of investigation, report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Code of Criminal Procedure) was presented by the police for prosecution of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

Charge for offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with Criminal Section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses.Charan Dass, Tehsil Assistant, PW1 stated that the accused was posted as Sales Clerk and on 2.8.2000 he was marked present in the attendance register. The witness also identified the signatures of the accused on challan form regarding deposit of Rs 34,116/- by the complainant in government treasury.

MHC Varinder Kumar, PW2 tendered his affidavit in evidence being formal witness.

Constable Sanjiv Kumar PW3 stated that he delivered two sealed nips in Forensic Science Laboratory without any tampering by anybody.

Jatinder Pal, Clerk, PW4 brought service record of the accused including his service book and proved its copies. He also brought posting order of the accused and proved its copy.

Harcharan Singh, Clerk, PW5 proved sanction order for prosecution of the accused.

Inspector Harbans Lal, PW6 stated that he recorded formal FIR in this case.

Balwant Singh shadow witness PW7, Dr. Sukhpal Singh Medical Officer PW8, complainant Mehal Singh PW9 and Amrik Singh, the then DSP PW10 broadly stated according to the prosecution version. Vijay Kumar PW was given up as unnecessary.

The accused in his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure admitted his posting as Clerk in the Office of Tehsildar (Sales), Nakodar, but broadly denied all the other incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He stated that Balwant Singh and his brother Kulwant Singh had applied for allotment of 16 kanals land each on the basis of their possession, but Makhan Singh Sarpanch of village Avan Khalsa gave application that the said land be allotted to him being in his possession. In view of documents produced by Makhan Singh, application of Kulwant Singh was rejected.Balwant Singh also filed affidavit dated 25.4.2000 that No. case was pending regarding the said land in court, but Makhan Singh filed affidavit that a case was pending in court. Balwant Singh had enmity with the accused.On that account and in connivance with the complainant, false case was got registered.

In defence, the accused examined two witnesses.

Puran Chand DW1 brought record and proved order Ex. DD dated 23.8.1998 regarding Kulwant Singh and affidavit dated 25.4.2000 of Balwant Singh.

Baljinder Singh DW2 is son of Makhan Singh aforesaid. He broadly stated according to the defence version.

Learned Special Judge vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused as already noticed hereinbefore.Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed the instant criminal appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Criminal case file with their assistance.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that Balwant Singh PW7 stated that he and complainant Mehal Singh had not met the accused together before the trap whereas the complainant Mehal Singh stated that on 28.7.2000 also, Balwant Singh had accompanied him to the accused. It was also contended that Balwant Singh was inimical to the accused because proceedings for allotment of land to Balwant Singh were stopped by the accused. It was also pointed out that Balwant Singh deposed that the DSP conducted personal search of the accused leading to recovery of Rs 4100/- odd and independent official witnesses searched the accused leading to recovery of purse containing the tainted currency notes. It was also pointed out that the complainant stated that the vehicle in which they were going to the spot was stopped at Malri Gate which is about 1.5 kms from Tehsil office, and from Malri Gate, the complainant and the shadow witness went to Tehsil office whereas other members of the raiding party remained in Malri Gate i.e. at a distance of 1.5 kMs. It was accordingly pointed out that the prosecution case is doubtful. It was also submitted that in corruption cases, fool proof evidence is required to convict an accused because the conviction would not only send the accused to jail but would also deprive him of his livelihood and he would also earn ignominy and, therefore, in corruption cases, appreciation of evidence is on different footing, as observed by this Court in Kuldip Rai v. State of Punjab, 2002 (2) R.C.R. (Cri) 781 followed in Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Cri) 310.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State contended that all prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their statements are sufficient to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. All prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Their statements could not be impeached in their lengthy cross-examination. The complainant had No. enmity whatsoever with the accused. Even Balwant Singh shadow witness had No. enmity with the accused. Merely because Balwant Singh and his brother had applied for allotment of some land and the same was resisted by one Makhan Singh, it cannot be said that Balwant Singh had any enmity with the accused. The accused had not led any evidence to depict that he played any role in the said allotment proceedings.There is also No. documentary evidence to depict that the said allotment proceedings were stopped much less stopped at the instance of the accused.There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the accused recorded any note in the said proceedings or that the said note was unfavourable to Balwant Singh and his brother. It is, thus, manifest that even Balwant Singh had No. enmity with the accused. Statements of complainant and shadow witness are also corroborated by statements of Dr. Sukhpal Singh, Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer Amrik Singh who was DSP Vigilance at the relevant time. There is No. reason whatsoever to discard the sworn statements of these witnesses. They had No. malice, ill will or bias against the accused so as to implicate him in a false case or to depose falsely against Criminal him. From the statements of the complainant and the shadow witness, demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused is fully proved.Their statements are further corroborated by Dr. Sukhpal Singh and Amrik Singh PWs regarding recovery of tainted currency notes from the purse of the accused. The said recovery is also proved by hand wash and purse wash of the accused. It is, thus, manifest that the accused, as public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant for official work.

It is correct that Balwant Singh has not stated about demand of bribe by the accused made on 28.7.2000. However, complainant has stated about the said demand. Moreover, Balwant Singh shadow witness has also stated about demand of bribe money made by the accused on 2.8.2000 at the time of trap. Consequently, it cannot be said that demand of bribe money by the accused is not established. Minor contradictions pointed out in the statements of complainant and shadow witness cannot be given undue importance and cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. On the other hand, some contradictions are bound to occur with passage of time and on account of different powers of perception, observation and memory.Even appreciating the prosecution evidence for higher degree of proof being corruption case, the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the higher standard of proof required in corruption cases.

For the reasons aforesaid, I have No. hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has led cogent and credible evidence to bring home the charge against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.Criminal Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is affirmed.

As regards quantum of sentence, sentence of imprisonment for one year only cannot be said to be excessive. Menace of corruption is assuming alarming proportion. These days, common man is up in arms against the wide spread cancer of corruption, yearning for corruption free society. Accordingly, menace of corruption has to be curbed with strong hand. Therefore, sentence awarded to the accused by the trial Judge does not warrant interference or reduction.

As a necessary upshot of the discussion aforesaid, I find No. merit in the instant criminal appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The accused-Appellant who is on bail shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence.