Pritam Singh vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.

Pritam Singh, appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16111985 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rohtak vide which he was convicted of an offence u/s 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under the former charge and RI for one year under the latter charge. The sentences were made to run concurrently.

The prosecution as briefly narrated, is to the effect that PW6 Jai Karan wanted to apply for the grant of loan from the Land Mortgage Bank Rohtak. For the purpose, he required copies of Jamabandi an Khasra Girdawari. He, accompanied by PW1 Suresh Kumar, approached the appellant who was working as a Patwari in village Bohar. He asked him to the supply the copies. The appellant however, demanded Rs. 300/ as illegal gratification for the issuance of the copies. He further promised to supply the copies on the following day in the Tehsil Office, provided the money was paid. Jai Karan did not want to pay illegal gratification. He, therefore, wrote a complaint Ex. PC and went to the office of the ASP Rohtak. He handed over the complaint to the ASP and also produced three currency notes each of the denomination of Rs. 100/. The ASP applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes. He returned those notes to him, with a direction to go to the office of the appellant and pass on the same to him on demand. A police party was organised in which DSP Bhim Singh, Jai Karan, Suresh Kumar, Tara Chand and others were joined. The party proceeded to the office of the accused in a jeep. From there the party proceeded further on foot. Tara Chand was deputed as a shadow witness and a direction was given to Jai Karan and Tara Chand to give the agreed signal after the money was passed on to the appellant. Jai Karan found the appellant present on the steps leading to the verandah of the Court Room of the Tehsildaar. Jai Karan told the appellant to do his job and also offered to give him the amount as demanded by him earlier. The appellant then demanded the amount to be paid first and the same was handed over to him Jai Karan. Jai Karan immediately gave the signal, as prearranged and Tara Chand, who was standing a few steps behind him, further gave the signal to the members of the party. A raid was then carried out and the tainted money was recovered from the left hand of the appellant. The left hand of the appellant was got washed in a solution of sodium carbonate the color of which changed into pink. The same was sealed in a bottle. Similarly the other solution into which the currency notes were dipped the colour of which also changed into pink was also taken into possession and the numbers of the currency notes were tallied. Further investigation was carried out.

The appellant was working as a Patwari in Halqua Bohar, as proved from the statement of PW3 Ishar Lal Batra. This fact is not disputed. Sanction for his prosecution was accorded by Sh. P.K. Chaudhry, Deputy Commissioner and the sanction order Ex. PA has been proved by PW1 Radhe Shyam, Addl. Bill Clerk. This fact is also not disputed.

The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW6 Jai Karan, PW7 Tara Chand, PW8 Suresh Kumar and PW9 Sh. S. N. Vashist, as witnesses with respect to the demand made by him of the illegal gratification including recovery of currency notes.

Occassion for making the illegal gratification demand is stated to have been provided by the need of Jai Karan to obtain copies of the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, as he wanted to get a loan from the Land Mortgage Bank. After going through the evidence on the record, I am of the view that Jai Karan is not a truthful witness. It is clear from the statement of PW5 Raghbir Singh, Field Officer of the Bank that in April 1984 Jai Karan had contacted him for the grant of loan and at that time he had produced the copies of Jamabandi. However, the Jamabandi carried a mention of mutation and as such, he asked him to bring a copy of the mutation, with the necessary documents PW4 Sia Ram, Kanungo had confirmed that Jai Karan was the owner of 1/4th share of land measuring 109 kanals 4 Maralas in village Bohar. Vide copy Ex. DA of the entry in the Roznamcha, copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari had been issued to Jai Karan on 27.3.84. The land in dispute had been notified for acquisition vide notification dated 6.11.81 and a report had been entered by the Patwari, Ex. DB. When Jai Karan was confronted with these facts he had evaded the correct answers to the same. He had to accept that a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued with respect to the land owned by him. He had admitted that in March, 1984 he had applied for the issuance of copies of the Jamabandhi, but thereafter he claimed loss of memory. He had further stated that he might have applied for the copies. He admitted his visit to the Land Mortgage Bank 23 times before the present occurrence, but he claimed loss of memory with respect to approaching the Bank, along with copies of the Jamabandi etc. He, however, admitted that the Bank had required him to bring copies of the mutuation and also to furnish consent of his other coshares. He, however, denied the suggestion that he had cancelled or scored off the entries of mutation in the relevant column of remarks of the copy of Jamabandi in his possession and had been asking the appellant to sign the scored off entry. He also denied the suggestion that if he were to get copies of the mutuation, the same would cost about Rs. 50/. It having been proved from the record that copies of Jamabandhi and Khasra Girdawari were issued to Jai Karan in March 1984 which Jamabandhi must have carried an entry in column of remarks about there being a notification with regard to acquisition of land there seems to be truth in the statement of the appellant that Jai Karan used to approach him for signing the scored off entry in the column of remarks of the Jamabandhi. It is difficult to accept that Jai Karan had contacted the appellant for a second time only for the purpose of obtaining copies of Jamabandhi and khasra girdawari which documents he had received in march 1984 and which he had produced before the Bank officials, asking them for the grant of a loan. His statement about making a demand by the appellant of illegal gratification for issuing the copies is, thus, far away from being true. There is no corroboration to the testimony of Jai Karan that when he contacted the appellant he did make a demand. Tara Chand was obviously at some distance and he was unable to state as to what transpired between Jai Karam and the appellant. Jai Karan, while appearing before the Police, had suppressed the true situation and been able to influence Sh. S.N. Vashist, ASP that the Patwari was going to fleece him of Rs. 300/ for issuing the copies. Since Jai Karan could not have obtained the bank loan on the basis of the Jamabandhi which carried the entry with respect to the land having been acquired by the State, he must have tried to influence the appellant for signing the remarks column from where the entry had been scored off. In case he was not obliged, as claimed by the appellant, Jai Karan could go to any extent to harm him. There were more than one ways open to Jai Karan to thrust the tained money into the left hand of the appellant either while shaking hands with him or while holding his hands in a manner in which the appellant might only have considered that he was being persuaded by Jai Karan to oblige him by signing the Jamabandhi entries as required by the Bank. Jai Karan being not a truthful witness, his testimony cannot be accepted with respect to the demand and actual payment of the tainted money. The non explanation by the appellant about the finding of the tainted money on his person in the given facts of the present case, pales into insignificance. I reject the prosecution case that the appellant had made a demand and accepted illegal gratification from Jai Karan, PW. I hereby accept the appeal after setting aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant of the charges. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.

JUDGMENT accordingly.