State of Punjab vs Rattan Singh

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Complainant Jagmohan Lal made the statement forming the basis of First Information Report No. 262 recorded in Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, at 3.20 p.m. of June 21, 1983 to Vigilance Inspector Bhajan Singh which reads :

"I have been serving as mathematics teacher in Govt. High School, Baran from September 1976. Earlier the pay grade of post was Rs. 6201000. Since 1.1.1978 it was revised to that of Rs. 6601200. The arrears bill regarding the difference of both the grades was due to me since 1.1.1978. This amount of arrears comes to about Rs. 1800/ for the period from 1.1.1978 to March, 1983. Smt. Shashi Lata a clerk of our school after preparing the aforesaid bill had sent the same on 7th/8th of this month to the Treasury Patiala for passing and information regarding the same was given to me. Yesterday on 20.6.83 at about 2.00 p.m. I met Shri Rattan Singh dealing clerk in the Patiala Treasury and enquired from him about my aforesaid arrear bill. He having come out of the room of his office, got alone and told me that he had raised objection on my arrear bill on the order passed wrongly regarding my crossing of the efficiency bar. I told him that the order passed in respect of my crossing efficiency bar was correct. He replied that either I should receive back my bill on which the aforesaid objection was raised and get it removed or if I did not want to follow this course then I should pay him Rs. 150/ as illegal gratification for passing this bill without getting the said objection removed. He also told that out of this illegal gratification amount of Rs. 150/ he would keep Rs. 50/ with him, pay Rs. 50/ to his Superintendent and the remaining amount of Rs. 50/ would be received by the Treasury Officer. I told him that my work was genuine and bribe may not be demanded. But Shri Rattan Singh Clerk became adamant on his aforesaid demand and told me that if I did not pay him illegal gratification as per his demand, he would continue harassing in the similar manner and he would not allow my aforesaid bill to be passed at any cost. Being helpless, I made a pretext of not having Rs. 150/ with me on that day and further made false promise with him to pay him illegal gratification of Rs. 150/ today at any time afternoon. After receiving illegal gratification from me today Shri Rattan Singh assured me to hand over to me my passed bill. I am not in favour of giving illegal gratification but being compelled under the aforesaid circumstances, I have come after making a promise to pay him the same. I produce the currency notes of Rs. 150/ to you. 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, Treasury Assistant accused Rattan Singh pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated February 1,1988 learned trial court acquitted the accused holding that there was no ocassion for the accused to demand illegal gratification on June 20, 1983 and for the complainant to make payment of Rs. 150/ to the accused on June 21, 1983 when the arrear bill had already been passed by the Treasury on June 20, 1983 and making payment of it was the job of Head Mistress in the School. Neither the demand for illegal gratification nor payment of tainted money by complainant to the accused having been duly proved, the accused was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted by the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement of acquittal aforesaid the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 359DBA of 1988 in this Court against it.

We have heard Shri S.S. Kang, DAG Punjab for the appellant state, Shri Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent, and have perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

Arrear bill of the complainant was initially submitted to the treasury on June 6, 1983. After removal of the objections it was resubmitted to the treasury by the school authorities on June 15, 1983. The bill was passed by the treasury on June 20, 1983. There was thus no occasion for the accused to make a demand for illegal gratification at 2.15 p.m. after the passing of the arrear bill by the treasury. Case set up against the accused is thus an ingenuity of the Vigilance staff; more so when the conduct of Inspector Bhajan Singh (since promoted as DSP) has been adversely commended upon by the Court on several occasions for doing so.

Learned trial court has rightly observed that neither could such a demand be made nor the amount of illegal gratification accepted in the hall room where 4 or 5 other Clerks employed in the Treasury are seated besides the accused.

Shadow witness Ramesh Chand PW 2 turned hostile to the prosecution and did not stand by the prosecution version of alleged payment of illegal gratification by complainant to the accused or its recovery from the accused in his presence. In regard to this witness learned trial court observes, "he was taken to vigilance office by some constable who was known to him." It is not clear as to why the choice fell upon Mr. Ramesh Kumar. This witness also admits that some persons were sitting in the office room of the accused when they had entered in the office for trap about 8/10 persons from the public also entered the room of the accused after his apprehension. Actually recovery was not effected in his presence as he has stated that Jagmohan Lal had sent to him to call some members of teachers federation and during his absence the tainted currency noted were recovered from the possession of the accused. The hands of the accused were washed in his absence. His pocket was also got washed in his absence. No powder had been added to the glass water before dipping piece of the paper in it. This witness was declared hostile at the instance of learned Addl. PP. He denied if any powder was added in the glass of water." The entire edifice built by the prosecution against the accused thus collapses like a house of cards. Accused Rattan Singh was rightly given the benefit of doubt by the learned trial court. Its finding of `not guilty'' expressed in favour of the respondent is, therefore, affirmed.

In result appeal filed by the State is rendered wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed.