State of Punjab vs Gurjeet Singh

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Author of the FIR No. 26 recorded in Police Station Sangat of Bhatinda District in Punjab State at 4.15 p.m. on January 31, 85 named Jasbir Singh stated to Inspector Harchand Singh of the Vigilance Bureau at 3.00 p.m. on the same day, "I am a resident of Sangat Kalan." My father had died about 18 years back. The mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of my mother Baljit Kaur, my six sisters and me. My grandfather had also one more brother namely Nika Singh who was unmarried. Nika Singh had got transferred his share of land in favour of me during his life time. He died about 10 years ago and the mutation of his land has also been entered in my name. A few days ago, Gurjit Singh Patwari of the Halqa of Sangat Kalan called me in the Patwarikhana and said to me "You have surplus land in your Khata. If you pay something to me you can be saved". Since I never indulged in such activity. I kept quiet and came back to my house, but I didn''t talk about it to anyone. Last Monday, Gurjit Singh Patwari again called me and said to me, "A lot of your land will be taken out as surplus land. If you want to save it, your work will be done for a sum of Rupees 5000/. I replied that I have been burdened with the responsibilities of the new family and that it is difficult for me to bear such a burden (Saying so,). I came back from there. Yesterday, Gurjit Singh Patwari again called me and said to me, "You should arrive at a settlement, otherwise you will suffer." I made entreaties to Gurjit Singh Patwari. He asked me to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/ for the time being and pay the balance amount when the work is done. But, I being ignorant don''t want to pay bribe nor want to get the work done by paying the illegal gratification. Gurjit Singh told me that he would be present at the Patwarkhana today i.e., on 31.1.1985 at 5.00 p.m. and asked me to pay him Rs. 2000/ and that my work would be done, otherwise I should bear the loss. Today I alighted from the bus at the Bus Stand Bhatinda where Surjit Singh, resident of Kot Shamir met me to whom I told about the money demanded by the Patwari. I have come to lodge a complaint by taking him along. I produce Rs. 2000/ in the shape of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each. Action may be taken.

On being charged with the commission of offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, accused Gurjeet Singh, revenue Patwari. Halqua Sangat Kalan pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated January 29, 1988 learned trial court acquitted the accused holding that there was neither any demand for nor actual payment made of the alleged amount of illegal gratification by the complainant to the accused and that the sum of Rs. 2000/ of tainted money allegedly passed on by the complainant to the accused was in respect of share money of Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Limited''s shares purchased by the complainant vide his signatures on form Ex. DC. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 344DBA of 1988 in this Court.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, AAG Punjab for the appellant State, Shri R.K. Battas, Advocate, for the respondent and have perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

Four marlas of land belonging to the mother of the complainant Smt. Baljit Kaur had been declared surplus by Collector Agrarian on November 11, 1976. Complainant Jasbir Singh noted the order on March 17, 1982. On the same day complainant extended to the Patwari, arrayed as accused, a threat of his life for the action aforesaid. The accused made a note of it in entry No. 263 dated March 17, 1982 in Rozamcha Wakiati, copy Ex. DE. On April 8, 1982 the State got possession of the surplus and aforesaid. The complainant was therefore, unhappy with the accused on this account and for him falsely inculpate for corruption while making payment to him of the share money of Punjab Alkalies and Chemical Limited on January 31, 1985. Learned trial court thus rightly observed on the basis of cogent, convincing reasoning based on reliable documentary evidence set out in paragraphs 8 to 18 of its impugned judgment that there was neither any corroborative evidence of alleged demand for illegal gratification excepting the interested deposition or the complainant himself himself in this regard nor of actual payment of the allegedly demanded amount of illegal gratification and that Rs. 2000/were paid by the complainant to the accused on January 31, 1985 in regard to the payment of share money of the shares of M/s. Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. purchased by Jasbir Singh complainant vide his signatures on form Ex. DC.

In a situation like the present one this court held inRam Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Law Reporter 159, "The prosecution version is narrated by Sukhdev Singh PW complainant, Ranbir Kumar PW3, Shadow witness, Gurmit Singh PW4, recovery witness and Ved Prakash Chopra Vigilance Inspector. Sukhdev Singh has supported prosecution version as given in the earlier part of the judgement. Much reliance cannot be place on his testimony. He has admitted in the cross examination that only 14 persons out of 52 fulfilled the requisite conditions of the loan. Others were not landowners. He further admitted that he had asked the appellant to certify every application that they were landholders. The appellant refused to do so. In such a situation, it is very difficult to rely on the statement of this witness. There is no corroboration to the earlier incident to the statement of Sukhdev Singh when the bribe money was demanded by the appellant. Ranbir Kumar is a shadow witness. Much reliance also cannot be placed on his testimony. He is clerk in the office of Zila Parishad, Jullandar City. According to his own showing, he did not get leave from the office to accompany the raiding party. His presence at the time of occurence is highly doubtful. He seems to be a made up witness. Gurmeet Singh is another witness. He belongs to the party of the Sukhdev Singh. He is also a witness of recovery. The defence of the appellant seems to be probable. It seems that Sukhdev Singh was annoyed when the appellant refused to certify the applications of the non eligible persons and on that account the appellant was falsely implicated. In such situation, no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of Sukhdev Singh complainant PW 2 and Gurmeet Singh PW 4 who are interested witnesses and the presence of Ranbir Kumar PW 3 at the time of Recovery is doubtful as observed earlier. The Vigilance Inspector should have joined really independent persons, which he has failed to do. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Ranbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 observed as under :

"The officers functioning in the anti corruption department must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of the court and the Court is not left in any doubt as to whether or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of bribe. They should insist on observing this safeguard for the protection of public servants against whom a trap ;has been laid"

For the reasons stated, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. In line with the earlier decision of this Court acquittal of accused Gurjit Singh by the learned trial court is confirmed. Bail bonds furnished by the surety and the personal bonds put in by the accused himself before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda with reference to this Court''s order of August 23, 1983 shall both stand discharged.

JUDGMENT accordingly.