Sat Pal vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal appeal filed by Satpal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.1987 passed by the court of Special Judge, Kurukshetra, who convicted the appellant u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months u/s 161 IPC and R.I. for a period of one year u/s 5(2) of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/; in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo R.I. for three months.

The brief facts of the prosecution story are that the appellant in the capacity of public servant demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 400/ by way of illegal gratification for connecting the tubewell of PW Sukha Singh with the transformer and that the said amount was recovered from the appellant, who was employed, at the relevant time, as Junior Engineer in the Haryana State Electricity Board, Cheeka, District Kurukshetra.

Sukha Singh, while appearing as PW1 deposed that his land, measuring 21/2 killas, is situated in Village Theh Banera. Gurdas Singh, Chain Singh and Ram Singh were brothers of his father Kehar Singh. Gurdas Singh, aforesaid, was separate in cultivation whereas Chain Singh and Ram Singh held joint cultivation of their land. About 10 years back, they had sunk a tubewell in their land and had applied for obtaining an electricity connection. When he contacted the SDO, Haryana State Electricity Board, for the release of the connection, he directed the complainant to contact Junior Engineer Sat Pal Singla. Resultantly, he contacted him on 1.9.1986, who demanded a sum of Rs. 400/ by way of illegal gratification for releasing the connection. Since, the complainant did not want to pay the said money, he returned to the village and narrated the incident to PW7 Gopi Chand. On 4.9.1986, complainant Sukha Singh accompanied by Gopi Chand went to State Vigilance Bureau Office at Karnal. They met Vigilance Inspector Shri Kartar Singh and narrated the entire story. At the instance of Sukha Singh, FIR Ex. PA was recorded. It was read over and explained to Sukha Singh who signed the same in token of its correctness. Then, he produced Rs. 400/, i.e. four currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each before Inspector Kartar Singh, who prepared memo, Ex. PA and noted down the numbers of the currency notes. He treated the currency notes with a powder. He searched the complainant and then delivered those currency notes to him. The currency notes are Ex. P1 to P4, on the record. Other formalities were also completed. Gopi Chand, PW7, was appointed as a shadow witness and he was instructed to accompany the complainant to the office of the appellant and to hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. It was also directed to the shadow witness to give the agreed signal to the raiding party, by placing his hands on his head, on demand of money. Thereafter, Inspector Kartar Singh along with the police party, complainant and the shadow witness, came to Kurukshetra in the official jeep. They parked the jeep in the court compound. After some time, the police party left for village Cheeka and went to the office of the Block Development Officer. Shri Om Parkash, PW, was joined from Municipal Office, Cheeka, with the raiding party. The currency notes were also shown to Om Parkash who tallied the numbers of the currency notes. When the raiding party went to the office of the accused, he was not present in the office as a result of which, the police party returned to the office of the Municipal Committee. An informer was sent to the office of the accused to find out whether he had come to the office or not. When the raiding party came to know about the arrival of the accused in the office, another attempt was made to conduct a raid. Complainant Sukha Singh followed by shadow witness Gopi Chand want to the office of the accused who was found present in the office and at that time he was sitting in the chair. The complainant went inside the room of the appellant while Gopi Chand, shadow witness, stood outside the gate of the office of the accused. Accused made a demand of Rs. 400/ by way of illegal gratification for releasing the connection. Upon this demand, the tainted money was handed over to the accused who put the same in his purse after accepting the same and the purse was put in the right side pocket of the pant. On the desired signal, the police party raided the office room of the accused. Inspector disclosed his identity and searched the person of the accused. Purse, Ex. P5, was recovered from the right side pocket of his pant and the purse contained Rs. 400/, i.e. the tainted currency, Ex. P1 to P4. All the officials of the Vigilance Department and the shadow witness Gopi Chand and PW Om Parkash witnessed the recovery. A tumbler containing water was brought by the Inspector, who dissolved some power therein. The hands of the accused were got washed and the colour of the solution became pink. The currency notes were also washed in that solution and the colour of the solution again turned pink. The pink solution was preserved. From the further search of the appellant, a sum of Rs. 906/ were recovered. A wrist watch and a finger ring were also recovered from the person of the accused.

Accused was formally arrested. The file, Ex. PG, was produced by the accused before the I.O. and it was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PG/1. The Inspector also prepared the rough site plan, Ex. PK, of the place of arrest and on return to the police station, the case property was deposited in the police station. Special report was also sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and higher police authorities about the raid. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution, the appellant was challaned u/s 161 IPC and section 5(2) of the Act in the Court of the Special Judge, Kurukshetra, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused and vide commitment order dated 24.1.1987 framed charges u/ss 161 IPC and 5(1)(d) punishable u/s 5(2) of the Act. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 Sukha Singh, complainant, who has corroborated all the allegations of his information which was given by him to I.O. Kartar Singh. PW2 A.K. Pal is the Superintending Chief Engineer, who proved the sanction order Ex. PB/2, for the prosecution of the accused. PW3 Gulzar Singh, SDO, stated that Sat Pal was working under him as Junior Engineer with effect from 12.12.1985 till the date of the occurrence on 28.8.1986. He had issued the connection order in favour of Kehar Singh to Sat Pal vide book No. 31963. PW4 Sita Ram, Draftsman, prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PD. PW5 Sukhwant Singh proved the posting order, Ex. PE of the appellant. Inspector Kishan Lal, PW6, partly investigated the matter and he recorded the statements of certain witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Gopi Chand, PW7, shadow witness, corroborated the statement of PW1 Sukha Singh. PW8 Udey Singh Goyal, GA to the Deputy Commissioner, made the endorsement Ex. PH/1 and gave sanction, Ex. PH/2, for conducting the present raid. Om Parkash, PW9, is a witness of recovery who has also given due corroboration to the statements of Sukha Singh and Gopi Chand, PW1 and PW7, respectively. PW10, Inspector Kartar Singh, I.O., deposed that he firstly recorded the FIR at the instance of Sukha Singh and on his directions the case was registered. He constituted the police party and Gopi Chand was directed to act an a shadow witness and to hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant and when the tainted money is passed to the appellant on demand, the desired signal was to be given by him to the members of the police party. He further prepared the list of the numbers of the currency notes. Further, he deposed that he associated Om Parkash, an independent witness, to become a witness of the recovery in case the raid is successful. This witness also corroborated other material particulars of the allegations of the complainant Sukha Singh. The report, Ex. Pl. of the Forensic Science Laboratory was tendered by the prosecution.

On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances including the sanction, appearing in the prosecution evidence, were put to the accused. Accused denied those circumstances and has come with a counter version which is reproduced as follows :

"There are two transformers near the tubewell of Kehar Singh, father of Sukha Singh PW. One transformer which is overloaded is nearer to his tubewell. According to service connection order Ex. PC, I was required to connect his tubewell with another transformer which was not overloaded buy was far of distance and as many as 15 to 16 poles were requires to be fixed for running the energy wire from that transformer to the tubewell of Kehar Singh whereas only 5 to 6 poles were requires to run the energy wire from the abovesaid overloaded transformer. Sukha Singh insisted that his tubewell be connected with the nearer transformer which was overloaded. I advised him to obtain the sanction of higher authorities. He became annoyed and got me involved falsely in this case. I am innocent."

The accused did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the case.

The learned Special Judge, for the reasons given in the impugned judgment came to the following conclusion as finally set in para13 of the judgment :

"As a sequel to the above scrutiny of the evidence I am satisfied that the prosecution has satisfactorily established on record :

i) That on 4.9.1986 the accused was employed as Junior Engineer HSEB, Cheeka;

ii) That in the capacity of his being Junior Engineer it was one of his duties to connect the tubewell of the complainant with the transformer in compliance with the connection order Ex. PC;

iii) That he had committed criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as a public servant in demanding and obtaining for himself an amount of Rs. 400/ as gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive for giving electric connection of the tubewell of the father of Sukha Singh PW1 with the transformer which was an official act; and

iv) That he had committed criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as Junior Engineer HSEB, a public servant and obtained for himself pecuniary advantage and directly accepted Rs. 400/ as bribe from Sukha Singh PW1 for energising his tubewell."

Finally, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and order of sentence the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Advocate, counsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjeev Sheoran, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Haryana State, had with their assistance I have gone through the record of this case.

From the statement of Sukha Singh, it stands proved that the land of this witness was situated in Village Theh Banera. His father Kehar Singh and joint cultivation with his brothers Chain Singh and Ram Singh whereas his uncle Gurdas Singh had a separate cultivation. It is further established on the testimony of Sukha Singh that Kehar Singh and his two brothers had sunk a tubewell in their land and had applied for obtaining the electricity connection. In order to get the electricity connection, he contacted the SDO, Haryana State Electricity Board, who gave the directions to the complainant to contact Sat Pal Singla, Junior Engineer, for this purpose. It has also been established from the statement of the S.D.O. that Sat Pal was competent to deal with the matter and release the connection. In these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the appellant made a demand of Rs. 400/ from Sukha Singh, who was not eager to pay the same and he confided the matter with Gopi Chand as a result of which Sukha Singh and Gopi Chand contacted the Vigilance Inspector Kartar Singh. It has also been established from the sworn testimony of Sukha Singh that earlier the appellant made a demand of Rs. 400/ and on the date of raid he along with Gopi Chand went to the office of the accused at the first instance. Accused was not present in the office but after some wait, the accused came to the office and again made a demand of Rs. 400/. The tainted money was paid to the accused who accepted the same and put it in the purse, which was again put in the pocket of the pant. The statement of Sukha Singh has been fully corroborated by PW7 Gopi Chand besides the statement of Om Parkash, who is a totally independent witness and has no axe to grind against the appellant. From the crossexamination, which has been conducted from the side of the accused I am not convinced that Sukha Singh, Gopi Chand or Om Parkash had the tendency to depose falsely against the appellant. Even the documentary evidence proves that the file was lying in the possession of the appellant. I have gone through the reasons adopted by the learned Special Judge while convicting and sentencing the appellant and I do not want to differ with the same. So far as the position of law is concerned, if the testimony of the decoy witness has been corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of shadow witness besides the statements of the recovery witnesses, there is no bar in the conviction. The only test is that the evidence of such witnesses must inspire confidence in the mind of the court about the genuineness of the recovery. The testimony of these three witnesses is further strengthened from the statement of the 1.O. Kartar Singh who also deposed that the tainted money was recovered in the presence of these witnesses from the purse which was found in the pocket of the appellant.

Thus, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant, I do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.