Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

This appeal has been filed by Surjit Singh, Line Superintendent, Punjab State Electricity Board, against the order of the Additional Special Judge, Faridkot, dated August 9, 1984, convicting him under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/.

The facts of this case are that Balwant Singh father of the complainant Chamkaur Singh (PW.2) purchased some land in 197879 from one Lal Singh,. The latter had been sanctioned an electricity connection for this land. To energise the connection the appellant issued three poles and wire from the store in July, 1981 which the complainant transported on his tractor to the land. Thereafter the poles were duly fixed on the land and only the cable wire was needed to bring electricity to the land. To provide the cable the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 300/ from the complainant on July 25, 1981. The complainant promised to bring the money after some days. Atma Singh (PW4) advised the complainant not to pay the bribe and took him on July 29, 1981 to Inspector Karam Singh (PW8) of the Vigilance Bureau. The statement of the complainant (Exhibit PA) was recorded by the Inspector and then three currency notes of hundred rupees each were handed over by the Inspector to the complainant to be passed on to the appellant as bribe Atma Singh (PW.4) was asked to act as a shadow witness and to give a signal to the raiding party at the appropriate time when the bribe money was received by the appellant. The raiding party proceeded to the house of the appellant and in the way Dr. Sardev Singh (PW.3) was associated from the Civil Dispensary, Lopon. When the complainant and Atma Singh (PW.4) went to the house of the appellant they discovered that he had gone to the busstand. They, therefore, proceeded towards the busstand followed by the remaining raiding party. The complainant and PW.4 met the appellant near the busstand. The appellant enquired from the complainant, if his work had been done, to which the complainant replied in the affirmative. Then the complainant handed over the three currency notes entrusted to him by the Inspector to the appellant who put the same in his shirtpocket. Atma Singh (PW.4) gave the requisite signal upon which Inspector Karam Singh along with Dr. Sardev Singh, and other members of the raiding party reached the spot. From the personal search of the appellant the incriminating currency notes were recovered from the pocket of his shirt which were seized vide memo Exhibit PF. The appellant was arrested and after completion of the investigation, was challaned and prosecuted with the aforesaid result.

In a case like this, to bring home the guilt to the accused, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant and had accepted the same in pursuance of the demand. To prove these allegations merely the statement of the complainant or the trap witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974(II) C.L.R. 611, that trap witnesses in a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being concerned in success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before conveying the accused. The same view is expressed in Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1976 S.L.R. 366 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 C.L.R. 93. It has been held in these cases that no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of trapwitnesses in the absence of independent corroboration because the trapwitnesses are interested and partisan witnesses and on that account they spring from trained source.

In the present case the abovementioned requirements of law has not been satisfied. The prosecution has not been able to produce any independent evidence to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant or its acceptance. The complainant has admitted that on one else was present when the appellant had demanded the bribe from him on July 25, 1981. The appellant is alleged to have accepted the bribe money from the complainant only in the presence of the trapwitness Atma Singh (PW.4). At that time no independent witness was present. Even Atma Singh (PW.4) did not state in so many words that the money received by the appellant from the complainant was in the nature of bribe. He did say that the complainant at that time had requested the appellant not to take the bribe. But in crossexamination his police statement was confronted to him which shows that he never made such a statement before the police. This statement is, therefore, an improvement during trial.

Thus, the alleged demand of bribe and the acceptance thereof by the appellant is not supported by any independent evidence. Appropriate evidence is, therefore, lacking in this case to prove that the appellant had actually demanded the bribe or that the bribe money had been received by him from the complainant. There being no independent corroboration to the statements of the complainant and the trapwitnesses on these allegations the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt in view of the Supreme Court dictum in the case of Darshan Lal (supra). Earlier also I had taken this view in Tarlok Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1983(2) C.L.R. 192.

The result is that this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is hereby acquitted. The fine, if already paid by him, be refunded.