AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Jindal, J.—Avtar Singh (since deceased), working as Halqa Patwari at Sirhali Khurd, was trapped while accepting Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification for preparing Naksha Urra in the partition proceedings as directed by Tehsildar, Tarn Taran. Consequently, he was prosecuted and vide judgment dated 31.07.2004, passed by Special Judge, Amritsar, he was convicted u/s 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as the ''Act'') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each on each count and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Since the accused died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, Sukhwinder Kaur, Rajinder Singh and Pardeep Singh, being his wife and sons respectively, were substituted as appellants.
Brief facts of the case are that about two years prior to the occurrence, the complainant Mukhtiar Singh (herein referred as ''the complainant'') had initiated the partition proceedings in the Court of Tehsildar, Tarn Taran, who vide order dated 16.06.1998, directed the accused to prepare and submit Naksha Urra on 03.07.1998. On 02.07.1998, the complainant met the accused (Avtar Singh), who was working as Patwari of the area in connection with the preparation of "Naksha Urra" but he demanded Rs. 1500/- for doing the needful, however, the bargain was settled at Rs. 1,000/-. Being reluctant to pay the bribe, the complainant accompanied by Nishan Singh, a shadow witness, informed DSP Randhir Singh and handed him over Rs. 1,000/-(i.e.10 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/-each) to him, who after applying the phenolphthalein powder and recording the numbers of the currency notes in the memo, prepared by him, directed the complainant to pay the said currency notes to the accused only on demand and not to shake his hands with him. He also nominated Nishan Singh as a shadow witness. Anwar Masih, a Clerk in the Office of D.D.P.O., was also joined in the raiding party. As planned, the complainant and Nishan Singh visited the office of accused and on demand delivered the money to him. On receipt of the signal, DSP Randhir Singh alongwith other members of the raiding party, entered the office of the accused. After disclosing his identity, he overpowered the accused, got washed his hands in the solution of sodium carbonate whereupon its colour turned pink. The said solution was poured in the nip which was sealed with the seal bearing impression "GS" and was taken into possession. Tainted currency notes were recovered from the left side pocket of the shirt of the accused. On comparison, the numbers of the currency notes tallied with those already noted in the memo and the same were taken into possession vide separate memo. Pocket of the shirt of the accused was also washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate whereupon its colour turned pink. The pink solution was poured in another nip which was sealed with the seal bearing impression "GS" and was taken into possession vide a separate memo. The Forensic Science Laboratory gave the positive opinion with regard to hand wash and pocket wash. On completion of investigation, a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused.
He was charged for the aforesaid offences to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined 7 witnesses in all.
When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted having posted as Halqa Patwari at Sirhali Khurd. However, he denied having demanded and accepted any bribe money. In defence he examined Ashok Kumar (DW1), who testified with regard to registration of "Naksha Urra" in the summoned file.
Arguments heard. Record perused. In order to constitute an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, the following constituents are required to be proved:
(i) The accused must be a public servant or expecting to be a public servant.
(ii) He must have solicited or received illegal gratification; or
(iii) It must have been received with a motive or reward for doing an official act.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the complainant, being an accomplish, cannot be placed reliance whereas Nishan Singh (PW5), being a shadow witness has not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the factum of demand and acceptance do not stand established. In such situation, mere recovery of tainted money cannot be treated as sufficient to indict him for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act.
Having delved deep into the arguments, the same appears to be not convincing. Since the complainant was not a willing bribe giver, therefore, he cannot be treated as accomplish. The accomplish is the person, who is voluntary to be the partner to the crime but it does not apply to those, who under the compulsive circumstances becomes party to the crime or participates in the crime while becoming a bogus punter, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Mukhtiar Singh complainant. While putting the testimony of the complainant on the yardstick of the fundamentals relating to the appreciation of evidence, he comes out to be most reliable and trustworthy witness. Complainant has specifically stated that he had approached the accused for preparation of the "Naksha Urra" but the accused agreed to do the needful on receipt of gratification of Rs. 1,000/-. He has narrated all the events leading to the payment of bribe money to the accused on demand. Despite the lengthy cross-examination upon him, nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony which could create a dent in the prosecution case. Notwithstanding the fact that Nishan Singh (PW5) has not supported the prosecution version, there is no evidence to discard the testimony of the complainant with regard to the previous demand and the demand on the day it was given to him. Lot of evidence has been led in order to prove the motive. A notice Ex.PZ, issued by Tehsildar, has been proved on record vide which Tehsildar, Tarn Taran, had ordered the accused to prepare the "Naksha Urra" and submit the same on 03.07.1998. Even according to DW1 Ashok Kumar, the partition proceedings were instituted by the complainant on 17.12.1996 and were decided on 28.09.1999. No doubt, he has proved that "Naksha Urra" is a part of the record but it is noticed that no date has come forth as to when and on which date "Naksha Urra" was prepared and submitted in the Court of Tehsildar, Tarn Taran. No material has been produced on the record suggesting that "Naksha Urra" was submitted in the Revenue Court prior to 03.07.1998 or if it was submitted later on. This fact was to be disclosed by the accused. All this goes to show that the accused might have kept concealed the fact with regard to preparation of the "Naksha Urra" from the complainant obviously with an intention to extract money from him.
Under these circumstances, the defence version does not sound to be probable and the accused has failed to putforth a convincing, credible and acceptable explanation.
Besides, the proof of demand of Rs. 1,000/-, made by the accused, as having been stated by the complainant, its recovery has been proved by Anwar Masih (PW6), who is an official witness. He had no special alliance proximity with the complainant. He has specifically stated that DSP Randhir Singh had associated him in the raiding party. On signal, being given by Nishan Singh (PW5), he alongwith DSP Randhir Singh and other police officials had entered the office of the accused. After giving identification, DSP Randhir Singh had asked the accused to raise his hands. A glass tumbler was called by the DSP in which mixture of sodium carbonate became milky i.e. of white colour. The finger tips of the accused were got dipped in that solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. Similarly, he has testified about the recovery of currency notes to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each from the left pocket of the shirt, worn by the accused. He has also corroborated the fact that currency notes, so recovered from the accused, had been tallied with the memo, as prepared by the Investigating Officer. The demand and acceptance of the currency notes, proved by the witnesses, has also been corroborated by DSP Randhir Singh. In these circumstances, presumption u/s 20 of the Act is attracted. No plausible plea in defence has been set up and proved by the accused, as such, no benefit could be given to the accused for the reasons that the shadow witness has gone hostile. Even otherwise there is sufficient evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime.
Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.