Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Mohinder Singh appellant has come up in appeal against his conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 26th November 1982. The learned Special Judge sentenced him to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/, in default RI for six months u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to RI for one year under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

In the month of November, 1980, the appellant was posted as a Line Superintendent at Gohalwarh SubDivision and village Mughal Chak of Joginder Singh complainant PW fell within his jurisdiction. ''The father of the complainant and his uncle had joint cultivation. They had installed joint tubewell in the name of Mohinder Singh, a cousin of Joginder Singh complainant. After some time there was a split between the brothers and two electric motors were installed with five horse powers each, although the connection of both the tubewells was in the name of Mohinder Singh. On partition, one of the tubewells fell in the share of Joginder Singh complainant. On 5111980, the appellant told Joginder Singh complainant that unless he pays a sum of Rs. 300/, the tubewell would be disconnected since the connection stood in the name of Mohinder Singh. It was agreed that the complainant would bring Rs. 300/ in the office of the appellant on the next morning. Joginder Singh complainant instead approached the Vigilance Inspector at Amritsar on 6.11.1980 and made a statement Exhibit PC. On the basis of the same, a format first information report Exhibit PC/2 was registered. Three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each which mere Exhibits P1 to P3 were handed over to the Vigilance Inspector by the complainant. They wore initialled by the Vigilance Inspector and treated with phenolphthalein powder. The numbers of the currency notes were also noted down by the Vigilance Inspector. Jagtar Singh Sarpanch of a neighbouring village, who was also present there was directed to act as a shadow witness and go with the complainant to pass on the money to the appellant. both Joginder Singh complainant and Jagtar Singh PWs went to the office of the appellant followed by the raid party consisting of the Vigilance Inspector and sonic other persons. Currency notes Exhibits P. 1 to P3 were handed over to the appellant who put the same in the pocket of his pant. A signal was given by Jagtar Singh PW to the police party. On seeing the police party, the appellant is alleged to have thrown the currency notes on the ground. After disclosing his identity, the Vigilance Inspector secured the appellant. A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the appellant was made to wash his hand in the same. The colour of the solution turned pink which was converted into a nip, Exhibit P4 The currency notes Exhibits P1 to P3 were lifted by the Vigilance Inspector from the ground and their numbers tallied with the numbers already noted down by the Vigilance inspector. The pocket of the pant of the appellant was also dipped in another solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the came also turned pink which was also converted into a nip Exhibit P5. Pant Exhibit P6 of the accused was also taken into possession. After necessary sanction the appellant was prosecuted.

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

"Since Mohinder Singh s/o Tara Singh was a defaulter I was entrusted with his DCO on 21/10.1980. I went to his tubewell on the same day. Joginder Singh PW was present at the tubewell. I asked him to make the payment of the bill of the tubewell. He told me that he did not possess the money at that time. I then told him that I was going to make the disconnection unless he makes the payment. He brought the money immediately. He handed over the amount to me and asked for the receipt in his name. I told him that since the tubewell was in the name of Mohinder Singh, I could not Issue the receipt in his name. On this account, we had alteration I then also charged a fine of Rs. 10/ from him along with the payment of his bill. I deposited the amount recovered from Joginder Singh PW on 22.10.1980. I also informed the SDO about the altercation. I returned the DCO order. with my endorsement the same day. On 6111980, I was proceeding to the revenue section. of my office. Joginder Singh caught me from my hand and asked me to bear him for a minute. He had currency notes in his hand and tried to put them in my pocket. I raised alarm and with push of my hand threw currency notes on the ground. Immediately, the SDO and other officials came there. Two constables in plain clothes were already standing near my office. After about 25 mts Inspector Behari Lal came there. The SDO and myself informed Behari Lal about my altercation with Joginder Singh. Inspector then asked Joginder Singh as to why he did not tell them about the DCO. I told the Inspector that I was being falsely implicated and as such I was not arrested".

In defence, he examined Shri O.P. Bansal, Asstt. XEN, DW 1. He stated that he was S.D.O. at Gohalwarh on 6.11.1980 The currency notes Exhibits P1 to P3 were lying on the ground which were lifted by the Vigilance Inspector. He farther stated that the appellant was declaring that he was being falsely implicated in the case and that he had issued Exhibit PB, for nonpayment of the bill by the complainant and that the money recovered by the appellant and also deposited by him. The appellant further informed him that the complainant was not willing to pay the money and it was with great difficulty and after some quarrel that he recovered the money from the complainant.

The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined the following witnesses. Shri Ram Parkash, Superintendent PW 1 proved the sanction Exhibit PA for the prosecution of the appellant. Swaran Singh PW 2. Assistant Revenue Accountant, SubDivision Gohalwarh. proved Exhibit PB. disconnection order, for nonpayment of the bill, issued by the S.D.O. and payment for the same was deposited by the appellant. According to this witness. Kailash Chander PW 3 only proved the appointment of the appellant at that place at that particular point of time. Joginder Singh PW 4 is the complainant. Jagtar Singh PW 5 shadow witness did not support the prosecution version. He was declared hostile and was subjected to crossexamination by the Public Prosecutor. Tarlok Singh PW 6, Clerk of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, was also a member of the raid party. He went with the police and in his presence the currency notes Exhibits P1 to P3 were lifted by the Vigilance Inspector from the ground. He also deposed that the appellant was declaring that he was being falsely involved in the case. Bihari Lal PW 7 Vigilance Inspector organised the raid and investigated the case.

Mr. Y. P. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant has at the very out set contended that there is no corroboration to the statement of the complainant Joginder Singh, as far as the demand for illegaltis gratification concerned. He has further submitted that this witness is also false inasmuch as that he denies the fact that the money for the outstanding bill was recovered by the appellant from him and the same was deposited by the appellant which stands proved by the documentary evidence on the record. The complainant, according to Mr. Gandhi, has a definite grouse against the appellant since he recovered the amount of the bill from him which he was not willing to pay and there was a quarrel between them as deposed by Shri O.P. Bansal, S.D.O. DW 1. The complainant has admitted in his crossexamination that he filed a suit against the department that he was being charged illegally for the bill and his suit was dismissed. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of such a witness who is deposing falsely on patent facts and to whose statement regarding the demand, there is no independent corroboration and who had a definite bias against the appellant. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 S.C.C. (Crl) 121. wherein it has been held that after introduction of section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, the Courts must insist on the corroboration 165A of the Indian Penal Code, the Courts must insist on the corroboration to the statement of the complainant in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime because his status is that of an accomplice I find considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel.

Mr. Gandhi has further contended that it is in the evidence of Tarlok Singh PW 6 who accompanied the Vigilance Inspector that before they reached the office of the appellant, he was already secured by two constables and the money was lying on the ground and that the Vigilance Inspector lifted the money from the ground. This part or the statement of this witness has not been challenged by the prosecution. I am of the view that this part of the statement of Tarlok Singh PW lends corroboration to the stand taken by defence. Shri O.P. Bansal, S.D.O. DW 1 has also made a statement on this point. Both these witnesses, namely Tarlok Singh and Shri O.P. Bansal, S.D.O. PWs have further stated that the appellant was protesting that he was being involved falsely in this case. It is case of the Vigilance Inspector that Tarlok Singh PW was with him when he reached the office of the appellant. So the statement of the Vigilance Inspector definitely stands contradicted by Tarlok Singh PW when the Inspector says that the money was thrown by the appellant on the ground in his presence after they reached the office of the appellant. Another person namely Balbir Singh, Sarpanch who was also alleged to be present at the time of the raid, has not been examined by the prosecution.

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that the case against the appellant does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the appellant. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby cancelled.