Swaranjit Singh vs State of Punjab

K.C. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed by Swaranjit Singh against judgment dated 14.1.1998 passed by Special Judge Sangrur, whereby he was found guilty and convicted u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced vide order dated 15.1.1998 to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 15 days.

Briefly stated, the facts are that PW-1 Major Singh is resident of Village Chhajli and is a farmer. He had a dispute of about 10 Killa of land with Gurdev Singh son of Kirpal Dass and Vidyla Devi wd/o Kirpal Dass of Sangrur, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur. About one month prior to 22.12.994, police of P.S. Sunam had got the security proceedings finalised against the complainant. The complainant had also filed an application about 10-12 days earlier to the S.H.O., P.S. Sunam in writing, who had forwarded his application to P.P. Chhajli. About 3-4 days back, the complainant went to P.P. Chhajli to inquire about his application, where Swaranjit Singh, ASI told him that his application had been received by him and he had no time and complainant should inquire about the same some other say. On 22.12.94, in the morning, complainant again went to the appellant and requested him to initiate the security proceedings against the other party as they had a dispute regarding the land with other party and the complainant apprehended danger from them. Swaranjit Singh, ASI, appellant, told him that the security proceedings are not initiated in that manner, but a sum of RS. 500/- had to be paid to him as illegal gratification. The complainant pleaded for concession and Swaranjit Singh agreed to accept Rs. 300/- and agreed to initiate security proceedings against the other party. The complainant told him that he did not have money at that time, on which ASI asked him to pay the sum of Rs. 300/- on some other day, so, that security proceedings could be initiated against the other party. Complainant told about the incident to Gurmail Singh s/o Tek Singh r/o Chhajli, who told him that illegal gratification should not be paid. Both of them had then gone to the Vigilance Officer, Sangrur as the complainant did not want to pay the money. Rs. 300/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each were presented before the Vigilance Department and request was made for taking proceedings against the accused. After recording the statement, it was read over to Major Singh, who signed the same in token of its correctness. Endorsement Ex.PB/1 was made and the currency notes in the denomination of rupees three hundred were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PD attested by Major Singh and Gurmail Singh, after applying Penol Pathelene powder. Demonstration was given to him by preparing solution of sodium carbonate by putting a paper with the said powder in the solution. The solution turned pink. Demonstration memo Ex.PC was prepared which was attested by Major Singh and Gurmail Singh. Thereafter PW-10 made his endorsement Ex.PD/1 on his statement Ex.PD and sent the same to police station through Darshan Singh for registration of Case. F.I.R., Ex.PD/2 was recorded by SHO Sampuran Singh. Thereafter DSP Ajmer Singh (PW-10) alongwith Major Singh and Gurmail Singh proceeded to Chhajli. On reaching Sunam, he joined Joginder Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Sunam in the raiding party after telling him the circumstances of the case. On reaching Chhajli, PW-10 prepared a scheme. Major Singh and Gurmail Singh were sent to accused and Major Singh was told that on demand made by the ASI Swaranjit Singh, appellant, he should hand-over the same currency notes to him and PW Gurmail Singh was asked to move his hand on the head, the moment the appellant received the money from Major Singh. After the money was accepted by the appellant then PW Gurmail Singh made signal by moving his hand on his head. Then PW-10 Ajmer Singh raided the appellant Swaranjit Singh and apprehended him after he was made to wash his hand in the solution of sodium carbonate. The solution turned pink and it was put into the hip and was sealed with the seal GS. It was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE attested by Major Singh and Gurmail Singh and Joginder Singh, Naib Tehsildar. Then search of Swaranjit Singh was conducted ant three currency notes in the denomination of hundred Ex.P-2 to Ex.P4 were recovered from the pocket of the shirt worn by the appellant. The numbers of currency notes recovered were got tallied from Naib Tehsildar Joginder Singh and the numbers were found to be tallied and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG attested by Major Singh, Gurmail Singh and Joginder Singh, Naib Tehsildar. On further search of the appellant, currency notes of Rs. 200/- and one identify card were recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH attested by abovesaid witnesses. Then shirt was inverted and washed in the solution which turned pink. The said solution was put into a nip, Ex.P1, and sealed with the seal bearing impression BS. The shirt, Ex.P6, was converted into parcel and was sealed with the seal bearing impression BS. Sample nip, Ex.P5 alongwith parcel and sample seal were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PJ, attested by the aforesaid witnesses. The Investigating Officer then recovered one application moved by Major Singh, lying on the table of the appellant, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK attested by the witnesses. He prepared the rough site plan, Ex.PQ, of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of witnesses. On return to the Police Station, case property was deposited through Inspector Bhartheri Singh with MHC in Police Station, Sunam. The appellant was sent up in police lock up at Sunam.

Upon receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the appellant.

Having made out a prima-facie case, the appellant was charged u/s 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 7.8.1995, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication at the instance of DSP Ajmer Singh, who was inimical towards him and had concocted a false version. However, he did not lead any defence evidence.

After hearing the learned Additional PP for the State and the defence counsel, the Special Judge Sangrur, found him guilty and convicted him u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide his judgment dated 14.1.1998 and sentenced him vide order dated 15.1.1998 as stated above.

Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has filed the present appeal.

I have heard Shri T.S. Sangha, counsel for the appellant, Ms. Swati Gupta, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent and carefully gone through the record.

PW-1 Major Singh is the complainant. He has supported the prosecution version partly in his examination-in-chief but he categorically stated that the appellant had not demanded any specific amount from him and he had only told him to come prepared after making his mind for initiating security proceedings against the other party. He further stated that he had put the amount of Rs. 300/- currency notes on the table of the appellant and the appellant had not put that amount in his pocket. He further stated that on search of the appellant 8-9 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each were covered but he did not know whether the same contained the amount handed over by him or not. In cross-examination, he took a complete U turn and stated that the appellant did not demand any amount and he had not handed over any amount to him. He further stated that he never went to the appellant alongwith Gurmail Singh.

PW-3 Gurmail Singh, Shadow witness, has also not supported the prosecution version. He categorically stated that he did not accompany Major Singh, PW, at any time in order to offer illegal gratification to the appellant. he was declared hostile but nothing has come in his cross-examination which could help the prosecution.

PW-6 Joginder Singh, Naib Tehsildar, also accompanied the raiding party. However, no amount was demanded in his presence and PW-1 Major Singh had not handed over any amount to the appellant in his presence. He simply stated that on receipt of the arranged signal, which was given by Gurmail Singh, they went to the spot and washed the hands of the appellant in sodium carbonate, which solution turned light pink and the same was put in a nip and was sealed and the said nip, Ex.P1, was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PE. He next stated that on the personal search of the appellant, Swaranjit Singh, he had recovered three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- from the pocket of the appellant, which were earlier handed over by Major Singh.

PW-1 and PW-3 did not state that any amount was recovered from the pocket of the appellant. PW-1 on the other hand said that the currency notes were of the denomination of Rs. 50/- each but PW-6 stated that the same were of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. Moreover, PW-6 stated that the hands of the appellant were got washed by Inspector Bhartheri Singh but PW-10 Ajmer Singh, SP, stated that the hands were got washed by him. PW-6 further stated he had seen the currency notes Ex.P2 to P4 for the first time in the police post, Chhajli. He did not state that the currency notes were handed over to Major Singh in his presence which were allegedly handed over to the appellant. This only shows that PW-6 was not present at the spot and is a procured witness. In such circumstances, the testimony of PW-10 Ajmer Singh alone is not believable. Moreover, PW-1 had stated that the solution of the sodium carbonate had turned red while PW-10 stated that it had turned pink when the hands of the appellant were got washed in the said solution. He could not tell as to from where the shadow witness had given the signal. He could not tell as to in which direction the police post was situated. He could not tell as to how many rooms were there in the Police Post. He could not tell as to whether the person who had given signal was a Sikh or Hindu gentleman. These facts only suggest that the occurrence has not taken place as alleged and the appellant was falsely implicated.

In view of the above discussion, I told that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Consequently, the appellant is given benefit of doubt. The appeal, is therefore, accepted and the impugned judgment and order of the Court below is set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. His bail bonds are discharged.