Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Mihan Singh needed a copy of the jamabandi of his agricultural lands situated in the revenue estate of Barsat in Patiala district of Punjab State. Accused Mohinder Singh was then the Halqa Patwari. Joginder Singh son of Mihan Singh contacted the accused on 6th May, 19,11 who demanded Rs. 100/ (Rupees on hundred only by way of illegal gratification for its supply. Matter was reported to the Vigilance Inspector Santokh Singh of Patiala. The Vigilance Inspector got the raid conducted after completing procedural formalities. Harchand Singh of Electricity Department was joined as shadow witness in the sin. The tainted money after being passed by Joginder Singh to the accused, was got recovered from the pocket of the bushirt worn by accused at the relevant time. After competition of the legal formalities, accused Mohinder SinghRevenue Patwari of Halqa Barsat aforesaid was prosecuted under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Special Judge, Patiala convicted him of the commission of both the offences aforesaid and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fined him Rs. 500/ for his conviction under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. For his conviction under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code convictedaccused was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused individually on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved therefrom convictedaccused Mohinder Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 278SB of 1975 in this Court.

I have heard Shri R.S. Rai, Advocate for the appellant, Shri P.S. Kang, Advocate for the State and have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

In the course of his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, accused Mohinder Singh stated :

"I am innocent. Kapur Chand of Banera got the land of Hoshiar Singh attached under the orders of the court. That attachment was effected by me and that land was joint of Hoshiar Singh and father of Harchand Singh. Hoshiar Singh and Harchand Singh were aggrieved against me on that account and they nursed a grudge against me. Harchand Singh joined hands with Joginder Singh and Vigilance Inspector and falsely implicated me in this case. I did not demand bribe from Joginder nor he came to me for getting any copy of the Fard. I did not accept any bribe from Joginder Singh and nothing was recovered from me. Joginder Singh is not a cultivator. No loan could have been granted on the security of the land already under mortgage".

It is not denied that Harchand Singh shadow witness is nephew of Hoshiar Singh whose landed estate was got attached by Kapur Chand. PW7 Shri Sant Pal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, submitted in crossexamination, "It is correct that loan cannot be obtained on a land which is already under mortgage".

In similar circumstances it was observed by this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 621 , "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 Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974(2) CLR 611, 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 Punjab, 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 trapwitnesses in the absence of independent corroboration because the trapwitnesses are interested and partisan 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 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. In this case Trilok Raj would have provided the necessary corroboration and his nonexamination casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case".

In the present case, independent corroboration of the deposition of the complainantaccomplice and Harchand Singh inimical shadow witness is not forthcoming at all. Admission by the Tehsildar that the copy of the jamabandi asked for could not be made use of by the father of the complainant for the desired purpose of obtaining loan from the land Mortgage Bank, when taken together render the prosecution case against the accused to be not free from doubt. Accused Mohinder Singh is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Accused is already on bail. Bail bond furnished by his surety as also personal bond put in by the accusedappellant himself shall both stand discharged.