Sarwan Singh vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Special Judge, Ludhiana in Corruption Case No. 4/2 of 1986, dated 22.5.1986.

According to the case of the prosecution, the de factocomplainant Sohan Singh required a copy of the jamabandi of land for it in a Court of law. Therefore, he approached the accused on 3.6.1985 as the accused was working as Patwari of halqa Dangon. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 200/ from Sohan Singh to issue a copy of the Jamabandi. Sohan Singh agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 150/. As yet he had no ready money with him therefore, complainant told him that he would meet him on the next day with the money to get the copy. Accordingly, complainant Sohan Singh and Sher Singh contacted the Vigilance Department at Ludhiana on 4.6.1985 and narrated the incident to Inspector Amar Singh. Thereafter, the Inspector recorded the statement of Sohan Singh Ext. PA and registered a case. Thereafter, the Inspector handed over three 50 rupee denomination currency notes to Sohan Singh after treating them with chemical powder and asked Sohan Singh to give it to the accused. Accordingly, de factocomplainant Sohan Singh and Sher Singh went to the village Patwar khana and Sohan Singh met the accused and the accused told him that he was preparing the copy and the jamabandi was not yet ready. The accused asked them to reach at the Bus stop Pakhowal where he was reaching with the copy of the jamabandi. Thereafter, Sohan Singh and Sher Singh came back to the Bus Stop and informed the Police that the accused has asked them to reach Pakhowal. Then all of them went to Pakhowal in a jeep and the Police party dropped Sohan Singh at the Bus Stop Pakhowal. Thereafter the accused reached there. There the accused met Sohan Singh and Sher Singh and demanded an amount of Rs. 150/ from Sohan Singh who handed over the three fifty rupees denomination currency notes to the accused and gave a signal to the police party. Thereafter, the police party came and the Inspector recovered those three currency notes of fifty rupees denomination from the possession of the accused and the hand of the accused was dipped in a glass of water and the colour turned pink. The currency notes were same which were handed over by the Inspector to Sohan Singh. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the ''Act''). The learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in defence examined six witnesses. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and sentenced the accused for a period of 11/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/ for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/ for the offence under Section 161 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge, the accused preferred the above appeal.

P.W. 1 is a retired Kanungo. He only deposed that the accused was posted as Revenue Patwari Halqa Dangon on 4.6.1985. PW. 2 is the main witness Sohan Singh. According to him on 3.6.1985 he approached the accused for getting a copy of the jamabandi and the accused demanded Rs. 200/ as bribe for issue of the copy. Then the deal was struck at Rs. 150/ and he told the accused that the money was not ready with him and he would come with Rs. 150/ on the next day. The accused promised to give a copy of the jamabandi as soon as the money was given to him. Then on the next day, he alongwith Sher Singh came to the office of the Vigilance Department at Ludhiana and he met Inspector Amar Singh and told him about the demand made by the accused. Then the Inspector recorded the statement Ext. PA of Sohan Singh. Then he gave three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/ and those three currency notes were treated with a powder by Inspector Amar Singh and returned them after preparing memo Ext. PB. Thereafter, he and Sher Singh went to Pakhowal and the accused was found present in the Patwarkhana and the accused asked them to reach the Bus Stand as he was preparing the copy of jamabandi and he would reach the Bus Stand with a copy of the jamabandi. Then he alongwith Sher Singh and police personnel from there went to Pakhowal. On reaching there the accused came in a Kotha. Then the accused asked him to give him Rs. 150/. Then he gave three currency notes of Rs. 50 denomination marked as Ext. P1 to P.3 and the accused gave him a copy of the jamabandi. Then Sher Singh gave a signal to the Police party who came there and searched the accused and recovered those three 50 rupees currency notes. As they were treated with a powder, when dipped in water it turned pink. In the crossexamination, he stated that he does not know Amar Singh Inspector earlier. He also denied that Sher Singh was cited as a false witness. He further admitted that in December, 1985, he had obtained a copy of the jamabandi from the accused. He denied the suggestion that he asked the accused to change the girdawari of the land of Nasib Kaur in the name of his son. He also admitted that he obtained a copy of the jamabandi from the accused. He also denied that in 1968, he appeared as a prosecution witness in 10 State cases under the Excise, Opium and Arms Act, P.W. 3 is Sher Singh. He was stated to be present at the time of recovery of the currency notes from the accused and also accompanied P.W. 2 to the Vigilance Department. In the crossexamination he denied that he is giving false evidence to oblige Sohan Singh as he is his friend. He further stated that at the time of the incident at the place where the incident took place, there were several shops and there were shopkeepers present. P.W. 8 is Inspector Amar Singh. He deposed that on 4.6.1985, Sohan Singh PW1 came to him alongwith Sher Singh and told him that the accused was demanding money from him. Then he recorded his statement. Then he laid the trap. He denied the suggestion that Sohan Singh was friendly with him when he worked at Police Station Raikot.

A reading of the testimony of P.W. 2 clearly shows that there was some litigation between him and sister of his brotherinlaw. It is also in his evidence that the accused made certain entries in regard to the property left by his sisterinlaw to which P.W. 2 objected. It is also in evidence that he had already obtained a copy of the jamabandi from the accused. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused demanded Rs. 150/ from P.W. 2 for giving a copy of the jamabandi. But it is a fact that P.W. 2 had obtained a copy of the jamabandi earlier to 3.6.1985.

Further, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused did not take money on 4.6.1985 when it was offered at Patwarkhana. The accused asked P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to come to Pakhowal Bus Stand where he would take the money. I do not find any reason for the accused to ask the PWs. 2 and 3 to come to Pakhowal. Further, according to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 the accused came on a scooter sitting on the pillon. There is no evidence to show that as to who drove the scooter from village Dangon to Pakhowal. It is also in the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 that there were several shopkeepers at the time when P.W. 2 gave the currency notes to the accused and the currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused but none of them had been joined in the investigation. It is not the case of P.W. 8, the Investigating Officer that he made any attempt to secure any independent witness and no body was present. A reading of the evidence of PWs. 2 & 3 shows that all is not well with them and the accused. I am therefore, unable to place reliance on their evidence. In the absence of any independent witness it is difficult to believe that the de factocomplainant gave three currency notes of Rs. 50/ denomination at Pakhowal to the accused and the same were recovered by the police there. On close reading of the prosecution evidence, I am not able to place reliance on the same. Further the accused examined DW. 3 who deposed that he is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pakhowal and he is also carrying on business as a Commission Agent and his shop adjoins the other shops situated at the bus stop, and his shop adjoins the shop of Charan Singh Halwai. Charan Singh also runs a hotel in that shop. On 4.6.1985 at about 4 PM a jeep stopped in front of the shop of Charan Singh and entered in it when at that time Sarwan Singh accused, Pal Singh, Sarpanch of village Andlu were taking tea in that shop. The police told the accused to accompany them. Then the police party took the accused with it in the jeep. DW. 6 also deposed that the Sarpanch of village Andlu was also in the shop who also deposed to the same facts as deposed by DW. 3. Therefore, from their evidence it is clear that the accused was taken from the shop of Charan Singh in a jeep by the police party when he was taking tea. I do not find any ground to disbelieve their evidence.

On a consideration of the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by placing independent evidence on record. The accused is therefore, entitled to be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the sentence and conviction imposed on the accusedappellant and acquit him of the charge framed against him. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.