Manmohan Singh vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal is directed against the conviction and swentence imposed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala in C.C. No. 27 of 1986 decided on October 19, 1987.

The appellant was working as a Revenue Patwari. According to the case of the prosecution, he demanded a sum of Rs. 100/ from one Gurnam Singh for giving him a copy of the jamabandi of Khasra Nos. 43 and 79 on 28.5.1987. The complainant Gurnam Singh filed a civil suit alongwith his father. That suit was decreed. Thereafter the Panchayat initiated proceedings for ejectment of the complainant and his father from the land before the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Patiala who directed the complainant to file copies of the jamabandi. In order to file the copies of the Jamabandi in that proceedings, the complainant approached the accused who demanded a sum of Rs. 100/ as bribe for furnishing copies of the said Jamabandi. When the complainant pleaded that he was not having the money on that day, the accused asked him to come on the next day. Thereafter the complainant met one Vijay Kumar on 28.5.1985 and narrated the incident to him. Thereafter both of them contacted the Inspector Vigilance who recorded formal FIR. The complainant handed over two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/ each to the said Inspector. The said notes were smeared with Phenolphthalien powder and given back to the complainant and a trap was laid on the next day. After handing over money to the accused, the complainant gave a signal to the Police party and on search of the accused, tainted money was recovered from his possession by the Inspector and taken into possession under seizure memo Exhibit PN. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused in the Court of Special Judge.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked certain documents. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty and further stated that his neighbour Ranjit Singh who was a Police Constable, had strained relations with him and that the complainant Gurnam Singh was also inimical to him and the case was foisted on him. In defence, he examined five witnesses.

On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous improvement for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 200/. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 161 I.P.C.

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences imposed by the learned Special Judge, the accusedappellant preferred this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Inspector who laid the trap and conducted the investigation had no power since he has not been authorised by the State Government in this behalf and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charged framed against him. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Harnek Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1988(3) C.C. Cases H.C. 418. This argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The ratio of the decision in Harnek Singh''s case (supra) applies if the case has been registered and the proceedings have been instituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereas the prosecution of the accusedappellant in this case is under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

There is no dispute of the fact that the State Government issued a Notification on 9th July, 1968 authorising the Inspectors of Police serving in the Special Inquiry Agency of Vigilance Department of the Punjab Government to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The said Notification has been issued in pursuance of the Ist proviso to subsections (1) & (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Judge himself in paragraph 42 of his judgment observed that the notification would enure or survive to govern any investigation done or legal proceedings instituted in respect of a case registered under 1947 Act. Even otherwise I have my own doubts about the correctness of the decision in Harnek Singh''s case (supra). But it is not necessary for me to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said decision since the same is not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, I overrule the primary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the investigation and prosecution are liable to be set aside on the ground that the Inspector of Police has no authority to lay a trap or investigate into the case.

The case of the prosecution is that when the complainant approached the accused for copies of the Jamabandi in respect of Khasra Nos. 43 and 79, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/. The complainant without paying the same informed the Inspector of Police about the illegal demand. The Inspector of Police recorded the said information and recorded a formal FIR and laid a trap.

PW6 is the complainant himself. According to him, he owns 12 marlas of land in Khasra No. 79 and another piece of land of 4 Kanals in Khasra No. 43 adjoining his land in Khasra No. 79 and that they have been in possession of the same since the time of consolidation proceedings. He further deposed that about 5/6 years prior to his giving evidence he and his father filed a civil suit against the Gram Panchayat regarding the said land and it was decided in their favour. Thereafter the Panchayat initiated the proceedings for their ejectment from the land before the District Development & Panchayat Officer, Patiala who directed them to file copy of the jamabandi of the land. Therefore, he approached the accused for copy of the Jamabandi and that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 100/ for the purpose of supplying copy of the Jamabandi. Since he was not willing to pay the said amount, he told the accused that he was not having the said amount, then the accused asked him to come on the next day. On 28.5.1987 he met one Vijay Kumar and narrated him the incident. Thereupon both of them met Vigilance Inspector Babu Ram Bhidey who recorded his statement. Then the trap was laid. Thereafter they went to the accused and he (complainant) paid Rs. 100/ in two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 50/ each and took the copy of the Jamabandi and gave a signal to the Police Party to arrive. Then the Police party came alongwith the witnesses and recovered the tainted currency notes. The solution was prepared which turned light pink when the hands of the accused were washed in that solution. The same was kept in a bottle which was sealed. This evidence of PW6 was amply corroborated by PW7 Vijay Kumar and the Inspector Babu Ram Bhidey who has been examined as PW9.

After going through the evidence on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same. This evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of PW, who is a Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh.

On a consideration of the evidence on record and also after going through the judgment of the learned Special Judge, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the conviction of the accused. I, therefore, confirm the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant Manmohan Singh died. Therefore, his legal representatives filed an application to come on record as appellants and to allow them to prosecute the appeal. That application has been allowed by this Court vide its order dated February 9, 1998. Therefore, the question of interference with the sentence imposed on the accusedappellant by the Special Judge, Patiala, does not arise.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.