Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana

P.D. Sharma, J.—Raghbir Singh on his conviction u/s 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, Rohtak, on 12th Sept., 1967, has come up in appeal.

The prosecution case may be stated. Raghbir Singh accused was employed as Patwari in the Gudiani Circle, District Rohtak, during the month of February, 1966 Jai Dayal, P.W. 4, intended to purchase the land owned by Om Parkash. He approached the accused at Shadipur to furnish him a copy of the entries (Fard) in regard to the land in the Jamabandi. The accused demanded Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification for complying with his request Jai Dayal visited him twice or thrice but to no purpose and ultimately he agreed to pay him Rs. 80/- for this purpose. The accused said that he could deliver him the Fard on 28th February, 1966 Jai Dayal went to Jhajjar on 28th February, 1966, and met the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, who was camping there at the time and reported that the accused was demanding Rs. 80/- from him as bribe for supplying the Fard. The Deputy Commissioner sent for Shri Hardyal Singh, S.D.O. (Civil) Jhajjar, P.W. 8 and banded him over some written instructions (P.A.), which were passed on by him to Mahavir Gupta, the then Naib-Tehsildar, Jhajjar (P.W. 1) under his endorsement (PA/1).

Mahavir Gupta alongwith Ajmer Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Jhajjar, P.W. 7, Jai Dayal complainant and others went to village Salhawas where Assistant Sub-Inspector Dalip Singh joined them. They then proceeded to village Gudiani. Sohan Lal Sarpanch P.W. 5, and Mohan Lal P.W. 2, on their asking accompanied them. Thereafter they left for village Shadipur where the accused appellant was working for the time being. Jai Dayal produced eight currency notes of Rs. 10/- each Exhibits 1 to P. 8, before Mahavir Gupta who after initialling returns those to him vide Exhibit P.C. He was instructed to hand over that these currency notes to the accused if he demand bribe from him.

Jai Dayal went to the place where the accused appellant was supervising the construction of some public works. The remaining members of the party waited behind at a distance of about 25 yards. He contacted Raghubir Singh and handed him over eight currency notes, Exhibits P. 1 to P. 8, who placed them in his pocket and gave him a copy of the relevant entries of Khasra Girdawari. Mahavir Gupta alongwith other members of the party rushed to the place where the accused was standing. The first of them, as a result of the accused person''s search, recovered eight currency notes, Exhibits P. 1 to P.8 from the pocket of his shirt which were taken into possession vide memo. Exhibit P. D. He also recovered copy of the Khasra Girdawari from the complainant''s possession. The first information report, Exhibit P F./1, was made to the Station House Officer, Salhawas Police Station.

The accused-appellant denied this charge and explained as to why the various witnesses had deposed against him -

They are false. Jai Dayal P.W. wanted to purchase land of a widow allottee at Gudrani. The mukhtiar of the widow used to come to me and he refused to sell the land to Jai Dayal. Jai Daval suspected that I had instigated the mukhtiar of the widow not to sell the land to Jai Daval and on that account he nursed grudge against me. In the year 1965, I made a report against Mohan Lal and Sohan Lal because they were removing the material of the evacuee property. S.I. Ajmer Singh wanted to thrust currency notes into my pocket and I offered resistance. He gave me beating resulting in grievous injuries. I have file 1 a complaint against him. Mansa, Mai Dhan and Ganga Sahai were present when S.I. Aimer Singh wanted to put currency notes into my pocket, and on my resistance he gave beating to me. They protested against the behaviour of Ajmer Singh, at the spot. I produced them before the D.S.P. but he refused to record their statements. After beating me, I was taken to Gudiani and made to prepar fard Ex. P.E. There is a Patwari union at Jhajjar and on 9th March 1966 I made an application before the union. The meeting of the union was convened on 10th March 1966 and my application was put on the agenda. Shri Mahavir Gupta supervised that meeting and told the members of the union that nothing incriminating was recovered from me and that I was threatend to prepare the fard. Kehri Singh, Mul Chand and Singhram patwaris were present in the meeting. I also produced them before the D.S.P. but he refused to record their statements. The D.S.P. also refused to take the application which I had made to the union.

Mahavir Gupta, Naib Tehsildar P.W. 1, Mohan Lal P.W. 2, Jai Dayal P.W. 4 and Sohan Lal P.W. 5, were cited at the trial. They supported the prosecution version. Shri Hardayal Singh, P.W. 3, admitted having received letter, Exhibit P.A., from the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, which he forwarded to Mahavir Gupta, Naib Tehsildar, Jhajjar, for compliance. Sub Inspector Iqbal Singh, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, Ajmar Singh and Uttam Singh P.W. 8, Deputy Superintendent Police, investigated the case. There is nothing of importance in their statements which need be mentioned here. The Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence sanction. Exhibit P. H., of the Collector, Rohtak. In rebuttal Mansa D.W. 1, Mai Dhan D.W. 2 and Ganga Sahai D.W. 3 deposed to the: effect that about 17 months back at 1.00 or 2.00 p.m. when they were working as labourers at the pond site in village Shadipur and Raghbir Singh accused was supervising their work, Sub-Inspector Ajmer Singh accompanied by the Naib Tehsiliar and a few more parsons in plain clothes coma there. Then the first of them caught hold of Raghbir Singh and gave him two or three slaps saying that he was in the habit of accepting bribes. He then searched the accused''s person and recovered one currency note of the value of Rs. 100/- and tried to put some currency notes in the pocket of his shirt to which the protested. The Sub-Inspector gave him further beating who was ultimately rescued by these three witnesses. None of them appeared before the Police to support their version during the investigation stage. D.W. 54 Kehri Singh and Mool Chand D.W. 5 stated that in a meeting of the Union of patwaris on 10th March 1966 convened in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar, application Exhibit D.A., filed by the accused was read out. Mahavir Gupta, who was also present in the meeting, is said to have admitted that no currency notes bearing his initials were recovered from the accused-appellants person and that the Sub-Inspector belaboured the accused and also put the initialled currency notes in his pocket. The Patwari Union passed a resolution condemning the act of the Sub-Inspector and sent copies thereof to the Deputy Commissioner and the Editor of the Journal ''Rahanamai Mal''. Hargopal. D.W. 7, Patwari, Circle Gudiani, produced entry No. 54 dated 2?th April 1965, Exhibit D. 6 from the Roznamcha. He also gave out that the accused had entered possession of one Pirbhu as tenant on the land of Sohan Lal in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1955, on Sohan Lal''s application this entry was corrected under orders of the Naib Tehsildar, Jhajjar, dated 8th March 1966 vide Exhibit D.D. The trial Judge believed the prosecution version and ignored the defence as fabricated.

The Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant urged that the section, Exhibit P.H. was not a public document and it could not have been admitted in evidence without formal proof. The Special Judge committed a mistake in taking judicial notice of it u/s 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. He relied on State v. Fulchand AIR 1956 M.B. 50 and Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Moazzem Hossain, . In the former case it was held that where the sanction for the prosecution for an offence u/s 19(f), Arms Act, purported to have been given by the District Magistrate was signed by him but the seal of the District Magistrate was not affixed to the document, the mere production of the same was not sufficient as it was necessary to prove the sanction by examining the sanction authority. Similarly, in the second case, it was pointed out that where the legislature had provided for a section as a condition precedent to a criminal prosecution, such sanction must be strictly proved and no prosecution can be entertained unless the necessary sanction has been legally proved. Both these cases no doubt support the Learned Counsel''s view point. The Learned Counsel for the State maintained that mere tendering of sanction in evidence as had been done in this case was a sufficient compliance of the law and as such the learned Special Judge could rely on it. He referred me to State v. Gurdev Singh Harnam Singh AIR 1956 Pepsu 11, State Vs. Sagar Mal and Others, , Gaya Din Vs. The State, and Dhanpat Vs. State, . In all these cases it was laid down that it was not necessary to prove the signature of the sanctioning authority on a sanctioning order as under the combined effect of sections 56 and 57(vii) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court could take judicial notices of the signature and could justifiably make a presumption that a signature under the order of the sanction was the genuine signature of the authority concerned. In the present case, the sanctioning authority was the Collector. The sanction bears his signature. Hence the trial Court could legitimately admit the sanction, Exhibit ''P. H.'', into evidence. The cases referred to by the Learned Counsel for the appellant have been fully decided in the latest Allahabad case (Dhanpat''s cases supra) I respectfully follow the principles- laid down in the authorities relied on by the Learned Counsel for the State as these lay down correct law.

The Learned Counsel for the accused, appellant also tried to make out that the Collector while giving the sanction, Exhibit P. H., did not apply his mind to the facts and that the whole material was not placed before him. A careful reading of the sanction will show that the whole material was placed before the Collector and that he did apply his mind before according the sanction. This was all what was necessary to be done as has been laid down in Munnalal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 7. The Learned Counsel for the accused, appellant finally submitted that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the accused received Rs. 80/- as bribe from Jai Dayal complainant, for supplying him the Fard. He took me through the statements of prosecution witnesses in extenso but was not able to point out anything substantial to discredit their probative value. Mahabir Gupta P.W. 1, was an independent and respected witness. He gave his statement in a straight forward manner which impressed me. It is correct that the accused on 27th April, 1965, entered in his Roznamcha that he had reported against Mohan Lal and Sohan Lal, P.Ws. that they had helped the residents of village Gudiani in removing and destroying the evacuee and Government property and as such they were prejudiced against him. It is equally true that the accused appellant in the Khasra Girdawari mentioned that one Pirbhu was cultivating Sohan Lal''s Land as his tenant which on enquiry by the Naib Tehsildar turned out to be incorrect. The Learned Counsel for these two factors desired me to infer that Sohan Lal and Mohan Lal could not be called as disinterested witnesses. The trial Judge considered these facts and came to the conclusion that these were hardly sufficient to ignore their testimony. I am also of the same view Both of them were the Sarpanch and Panch of the village Panchayat and in their representative capacity were associated with the raid. Their statements thus have appreciable probative value. Jai Dayal and Sub-Inspector Ajmer Singh, P.Ws. had indeed no motive for implicating the accused appellant in a false case. The accused-appellant started some criminal case against Sub-Inspector Ajmer Singh but this was after the raid and thus could not have adversely affected the value of his evidence. There was cogent and independent evidence before the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the accused appellant received Rs. 80/- as bribe when he was in the employment of the Government as Patwari for furnishing the Fard to Jai Dayal. His conviction thus could not have been assailed on any valid reason. The sentence awarded is already the minimum provided under the law and calls for no reduction.

The appeal fails and is dismissed.