Surinder Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.—This criminal appeal has been instituted by accused Surinder Kumar Gupta and Ishar Sarup Singh, who stand convicted by learned Special Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short - the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for each of the two offences, but both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

In nutshell, prosecution case is as under:

Complainant Amrik Singh was Secretary of Syan Gram Udyog Samiti (Regd.) (in short - the Society). The Society was to install a brick kiln, for which license was to be obtained from the office of District Food and Supplies Controller (DFSC), Sangrur. Appellant No. 1 Surinder Kumar Gupta was posted as Inspector, Food and Supplies in the said office. The complainant went to the aforesaid office and met Appellant No. 1 on 16.07.1997. Complainant presented file of his application for issuance of license before Appellant No. 1, who affixed seal of the office on the treasury challan for deposit of license fee of Rs. 50/-. Complainant accordingly deposited the said amount in the bank.

On 28.07.1997, the complainant again went to the office of DFSC and met Appellant No. 1, who demanded Rs. 15,000/- as illegal gratification for favouring the complainant by marking the application for issuance of license. The deal was struck for Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant told that he would come on the next day with the amount. The complainant talked to Ranbir Singh, who advised the complainant to get Appellant No. 1 trapped. Accordingly, on 29.07.1997, the complainant made statement to Mandeep Singh - Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Vigilance Bureau and handed over to him 20 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination. FIR was registered on the basis of aforesaid statement. After applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes, the same were handed over to the complainant. Memo Ex. P-L was prepared, wherein numbers of currency notes were also written. Ranbir Singh was also present with the complainant. Demonstration was given to them to depict that solution of Sodium Carbonate turned pink on dipping of piece of paper in water, with phenolphthalein powder on it. Hartej Singh - Clerk from the office of PRTC, Sangrur was also joined in the raiding party. Ranbir Singh was made shadow witness. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant and said shadow witness. Accordingly, Amrik Singh -complainant and Ranbir Singh - shadow witness went to the office, where Appellant No. 1 was found present at his seat. Appellant No. 1 asked the complainant about the bribe amount. The complainant answered in the affirmative. Appellant No. 1 then got the file marked and kept it on his table and came out of the office along with Amrik Singh - complainant and Ishar Sarup Singh - Appellant No. 2, who was posted as Junior Assistant in that Office. Appellant No. 1 then demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from Amrik Singh, who paid the same to Appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 counted the money and gave it to Ishar Sarup Singh - Appellant No. 2, who kept it in the right side pocket of his trousers. Ranbir Singh - shadow witness gave necessary signal to the remaining raiding party, who immediately reached there. Hand-wash of both the accused in separate solutions of Sodium Carbonate turned it pink. Pocket wash of trousers of Appellant No. 2 also gave the same result. Tainted currency notes were recovered from pocket of the trousers of Appellant No. 2. Necessary investigation formalities were conducted at the spot. Both the accused were arrested. File of application for grant of license to the Society was seized from the table of Appellant No. 1. On completion of investigation, both the accused were sent for trial under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act.

Charge under Sections 7/13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act was framed against both the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.

Prem Chand Bansal (PW-1) stated from record about posting of both the accused. Head Constable Gurbhej Singh (PW-2), Sub Inspector Ram Kumar (PW-7), Constable Harpal Singh (PW-8) and Constable Surinder Singh (PW-9), being formal witnesses, tendered their affidavits in evidence.

Ajaib Singh (PW-3) proved Sanction Order for prosecution of both the accused. Gurdial Singh (PW-4) brought service books of both the accused and proved their postings etc. He also proved transfer and posting orders of the accused. Puran Chand Kohli (PW-5) proved registration of the Society. Kewal Singh (PW-6) stated that he was Chairman of the Society and vide resolution dated 16.07.1997, complainant Amrik Singh, who was Secretary of the Society, was authorized to obtain license for brick kiln of the Society.

Complainant Amrik Singh (PW-10), shadow witness Ranbir Singh (PW-11), Hartej Singh (PW-12) and DSP Mandip Singh (PW-13) have broadly stated according to the prosecution version.

The accused in their examination u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) admitted their posting in the concerned office, but broadly denied all the incriminating allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. It was alleged by them that electric wires were passing over the site, where the complainant wanted to install the brick kiln. The complainant had approached the accused persons to get the work done without objection from District Food and Supplies Controller, but the accused did not oblige him and rather snubbed him. The accused alleged that for this reason, they were falsely implicated. Ranbir Singh - shadow witness was also interested party because his mother was Member of the Society.

In defence, the accused examined four witnesses. Amarjit Singh (DW-1) proved from record Attendance Certificate (Ex. D-A) dated 28.07.1997 depicting that Appellant No. 1 had attended the office of Legal Assistant, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, at Chandigarh on 28.07.1997 from 10:00 A.M. to 04:00 P.M.

Surinder Pal (DW-2) also stated from record that Appellant No. 1 had gone to Chandigarh on 28.07.1997 to discuss some case and note in this regard was put up by Appellant No. 1 on 29.07.1997. This witness also stated that electric wires were passing over the site, where the complainant''s Society wanted to install the brick kiln. Subsequently, the said wires were got removed and thereafter, license for brick kiln was issued to the Society. Initially, objections had been raised regarding the said wires.

Manjit Singh Sidhu (DW-3) had issued the Attendance Certificate (Ex. D-A) to Appellant No. 1 and proved the same.

Anjana Kumari (DW-4) stated that Appellant No. 1 had claimed Travelling Allowance (TA) for his tour to Chandigarh on 28.07.1997 and the same was paid to him.

Learned Special Judge, Sangrur, vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2002, convicted both the Appellants and sentenced them as already noticed in the opening part of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved, both the convicts have preferred the instant appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that demand of bribe money on 16.07.1997 by Appellant No. 1 was not mentioned in the FIR, and therefore, statement of complainant regarding the said demand is material improvement in the prosecution version. It was submitted that this improvement has been made because the accused No. 1 had gone to Chandigarh on 28.07.1997, the date on which the alleged demand had been made, according to the version contained in the FIR. It was also submitted that the prosecution version regarding demand allegedly made by Appellant No. 1 on 28.07.1997 is falsified by the defence evidence depicting that Appellant No. 1 was not present in his office at Sangrur because he was on tour to Chandigarh on that day. It was also pointed out that the complainant Amrik Singh stated that he deposited the license fee amount of Rs. 50/- on 28.07.1997, whereas in fact, the said amount stood deposited on 16.07.1997.

Counsel for the Appellants also attacked the testimony of shadow witness Ranbir Singh (PW-11) by submitting that according to this witness, the amount was paid to Appellant No. 2 and not to Appellant No. 1. It was also pointed out that Ranbir Singh deposed that recovery of tainted money was effected from shirt of Appellant No. 1, whereas according to other witnesses, the recovery was effected from trousers of Appellant No. 2. Ranbir Singh, at one stage, also stated the amount recovered to be Rs. 20,000/-and not Rs. 10,000/-. Ranbir Singh also stated that while going to get the file marked from Office Superintendent, both the accused had met them on the way and they had shaken hands with the accused. It was thus submitted that hand-wash of the accused turned the Sodium Carbonate solution into pink colour on account of said hand-shake.

Testimony of Hartej Singh (PW-12) was assailed by counsel for the Appellants on the ground that he was Government official in PRTC Department. Testimony of Investigating Officer Mandip Singh (PW-13) was challenged by submitting that there is discrepancy regarding the place of apprehension of the accused.

Counsel for the Appellants also argued that name of Appellant No. 2 has not been mentioned in the FIR nor there is any allegation of demand of illegal gratification made by him.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants also emphatically contended that electricity wires were passing over the site, where the complainant''s Society wanted to install the brick kiln and for this reason, license for brick kiln could not be issued and the complainant, feeling aggrieved, got the accused falsely implicated.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, contended that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Testimony of the complainant, coupled with the testimony of shadow witness, proves the demand of bribe by Appellant No. 1. Statements of Hartej Singh (PW-12) and DSP Mandip Singh (PW-13) further strengthen the prosecution case. It was also submitted that there is no reason why the accused would be implicated in a false case.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Statements of prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. Their veracity could not be impeached in lengthy cross-examination. There is no reason why they would depose falsely against the accused or would implicate them in a false case. Even the Investigating Officer Mandip Singh (PW-13) had no reason to plant a false case on the accused. Hartej Singh (PW-12) is also an independent witness, although posted as Clerk in some other department. He had no interest in the complainant or the prosecution and had no bias against the accused.

Emphasis on behalf of counsel for the Appellants, that license for brick kiln could not be issued as electricity wires were passing over the proposed site of brick kiln, is completely misplaced and merit less. Even before application for license for installation of brick kiln was moved and entertained, the accused could have no knowledge of the proposed site of brick kiln nor could they know that electricity lines were passing over the said site. This fact could be known and ascertained only on spot inspection after the application for license had been moved and entertained. At the threshold, without spot inspection, no such objection could be raised by the accused. They could not even imagine that electric lines were passing over the proposed site of brick kiln. On the contrary, later on, it was found that electric lines were passing there and the same were got removed by the Society and thereafter, license for brick kiln was issued to the Society as per evidence on record. However, at the threshold, when application for license for installation of brick kiln was being moved by the complainant, there was no occasion for the accused to have raised any such objection because they could not even imagine about existence of any electric lines passing over the proposed site of brick kiln.

Testimony of the complainant regarding demand of bribe money on 16.07.1997 also, which is an improvement, can be ignored. It does not affect the prosecution case because it is the consistent case of the prosecution that demand was made on 28.07.1997 and the deal was struck and thereafter, again at the time of trap, demand was made and the bribe money was accepted. Discrepancy regarding date of deposit of Rs. 50/- as license fee is completely insignificant and immaterial in view of the documentary evidence in the form of treasury challan of the said deposit depicting the deposit to have been made on 16.07.1997.

Ranbir Singh (PW-11) tried to help the accused by bringing out some contradictions/discrepancies in his testimony. The said infirmities in his testimony have been rightly discarded by the learned trial Judge. Initially, Ranbir Singh stated the bribe money to be Rs. 10,000. However, in later part, he stated the amount to be Rs. 20,000/-, which could be either inadvertent slip or by design to help the accused, but it is undisputed that it was the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, as stated by all other witnesses also and also evidenced by documentary evidence. Recovery of tainted amount of Rs. 10,000/- from Appellant No. 2 has not even been seriously disputed by the Appellants. As regards shaking of hands prior to handing over the bribe money, no such question was even put to the complainant in his cross examination. Testimony of Ranbir Singh (PW-11) in this regard is thus a clever device by him to help the accused. On the contrary, both the complainant and the shadow witness had been specifically instructed not to shake hands with the accused.

Omission to mention name of Appellant No. 2 in the FIR rather depicts the truthfulness of the prosecution version. It would depict that he has not been falsely implicated. If the prosecution wanted to implicate him falsely, his name would also have been mentioned in the FIR.

Defence version that Appellant No. 1 was away to Chandigarh on 28.07.1997 has been rightly discarded by the trial Judge. The said evidence appears to have been created later on. Letter Ex. D-B for approval of tour program of Appellant No. 1 for 28.07.1997 was dispatched on 01.09.1997 i.e. more than a month of the alleged tour. Bill to claim TA was submitted on 18.09.1997. Attendance Certificate (Ex. D-A) could be prepared any time. No file has been produced to depict that the Appellant had in fact visited Chandigarh Office on 28.07.1997 nor any advance tour program for the same was sent by Appellant No. 1.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Impugned judgment of their conviction is, therefore, affirmed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants prayed for reduction in sentence submitting that the occurrence took place almost 14 years ago. On the basis of conviction, the Appellants have since been dismissed from service. It was also submitted that Appellant No. 1 is now aged above 60 years and Appellant No. 2 is aged above 56 years. The prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel.

I have carefully considered the matter.

Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment of four years for each of the two offences is reduced to two years for each of the Appellants, while maintaining the sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof. It is ordered accordingly.

With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Both the Appellants shall surrender to their bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remaining period of sentence.