Tara Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J. (Oral).

This is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.1987 passed by Special Judge, Ludhiana, who convicted the appellant under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sec. 161 I.P.C. and sentenced him as follows :

1) To undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/; in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of 6 months under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2) To undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/; in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of 3 months under Section 161 I.P.C.

The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :

In July, 1985 appellant Tara Singh was working as Patwari in village Ramgarh Sivian and complainant Iqbal Singh PW3 owned land in that village. The complainant required a copy of the jamabandi of his land for getting a limit fixed from the bank for getting fertilizer loan. Two or three days prior to 5.7.1985 the complainant approached the appellant in the Patwarkhana of village Ramgarh Sivian for getting copy of jamabandi of his land. The appellant told him that the copy could not be issued till the complainant paid the bribe money to him and demanded Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification. Ultimately, the deal was struck at Rs. 50/ and the appellant agreed to supply the copy of the jamabandi on 5.7.1985 on receipt of Rs. 50/ as bribe money.

On 5.7.1985 complainant Iqbal Singh PW3 and Munsha Singh PW4 came to the office of Vigilance Department at Ludhiana, where Inspector Amar Singh PW5 met them. The complainant narrated the incident of the demand of bribe and then Inspector Amar Singh recorded his statement Ex.PC on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was recorded. The complainant handed over three currency notes Ex.P1, P2 and P3 of the value of Rs. 50/ to Inspector Amar Singh, who noted down the numbers of the currency notes, treated them with a powder and returned them to the complainant vide memo Ex.PD which was attested by Iqbal Singh, Munsha Singh and SI Jai Ram. Thereafter SI Jai Ram prepared a solution of Sodium Carbonate in water and asked Iqbal Singh to wash hands in that solution and when he did it its colour became pink and then the solution was destroyed. Then Inspector Amar Singh organised a raiding party consisting of himself, SI Jai Ram, Iqbal Singh, Munsha Singh a few Constables and left in a jeep for village Ramgarh Sivian. Before starting from Ludhiana Inspector Amar Singh had directed Munsha Singh to accompany the complainant Iqbal Singh at the time when he was to go to the appellant to give the bribe money and to give a signal to the police party by placing his hand on his head after the complainant gave the bribe money to the appellant and the latter accepted it. After reaching village Ramgarh Sivian Iqbal Singh and Munsha Singh PWs were sent to the Patwarkhana and the police party waited for the desired signal at a distance of 100 yards from the Patwarkhana. After Iqbal Singh and Munsha Singh left for Patwarkhana, Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh were joined in the police party. After reaching the Patwarkhana, Iqbal Singh complainant entered the room where the appellant was sitting and Munsha Singh waited outside. The appellant was sitting on a chair with a table in front of him and he was wearing an underwear and vest only at that time. After reaching there, Iqbal Singh PW demanded the copy of jamabandi from the appellant but the latter declined to give it till he received the bribe money. Then Iqbal Singh PW handed over the currency notes Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 to the appellant and the latter accepted those notes in his right hand while sitting on the chair and pulled the drawer of the table and placed those notes in that drawer and handed over the copy Ex.P4 of jamabandi to Iqbal Singh. At that time Munsha Singh PW gave the appointed signal to the police party by placing his hand on his head and on that signal the police party reached the Patwarkhana and entered the room along with Munsha Singh PW where the appellant was present. After entering that room, Inspector Amar Singh disclosed his identity to the appellant and caught hold of him from his arms and asked him to stand up and to raise his hands upwards. Then SI Jai Ram prepared a solution of water in Sodium Carbonate and its colour did not change and then the appellant washed his left hand in that solution and its colour did not change. Then the appellant washed his right hand in that solution and its colour became pink. That solution was then transferred in a nip Ex.P5 and was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE which was attested by Iqbal Singh, Munsha Singh, Sajjan Singh and Avtar Singh PWs. The appellant produced the currency notes Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 before the police by taking out from the drawer of the table. The numbers of the notes were compared with the handing over memo Ex.PD which tallied and then those were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF which was attested by the aforesaid witnesses. Then the complainant produced the jamabandi Ex.P4 before the police which was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG. Some record including the receipt Ex.PC was taken into possession from the Patwarkhana vide recovery memo Ex.PH. Rough site plan Ex.PK was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded.

The nip Ex.P5 was sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh from where the report Ex.PL has been received to the effect that "sodium ions, carbonate ions and phenolphthalein are present in the contents of the quarter bottle under reference". After the completion of the investigation of the case and after obtaining the necessary sanction for the prosecution, the appellant was challaned in the Court of Special Judge, Ludhiana, who supplied the copies of the documents to the appellant and framed charges against him under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 Niranjan Singh, who proved the sanction Ex.PB of the prosecution of the appellant. PW2 HC Balwinder Singh is a formal witness, who formally registered the F.I.R. Ex.PC/1 on receipt of ruqa Ex.PC. PW3 is complainant Iqbal Singh, PW4 is Munsha Singh and PW5 is Inspector Amar Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of this case. Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh PWs, who were associated by the Investigating Officer in this case by way of corroborative evidence, were given up in the trial Court as having been won over by the appellant.

Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The appellant denied those circumstances and stated that he has been falsely involved in this case. His plea is as follows :

"I am innocent. In July, 1985 I was working as a revenue patwari at village Ramgarh Sivian and village Shahjahanpur is also in my circle. The father of Iqbal Singh PW owns some land in village Ramgarh Sivian and he wanted to sell it, but his son Iqbal Singh objected to it. I got that land sold in favour of my relative Jaswant Singh. There were security proceedings against Iqbal Singh on one side and Jaswant Singh on the other side.

On 5.7.85, Iqbal Singh PW came to me in the morning at about 9 AM and I issued the copy of Jamabandi Ex.P4 to him on his request and made relevant entry in the record. On the same day in the evening at about 5 PM I had gone to the adjoining Gurdwara to take a bath in the company of Ishar Singh and Hardev Singh of village Shahjahanpur. When I came back to the Patwarkhana alongwith those persons after taking bath, I found Iqbal Singh PW sitting in the Patwarkhana. Immediately thereafter the police came there and I was arrested and then false case was prepared against me. Munsha Singh PW was a Siri with Iqbal Singh at that time and Munsha Singh wanted some recommendations from me for raising a loan for the purchase of buffalo to which I did not agree as it was wrong request. For these reasons, I have been falsely implicated."

When called upon to enter in his defence, appellant examined Ishar Singh as DW1 and closed the case after tendering into evidence copy Ex.PC of the plaint.

The learned Special Judge relied the story of the prosecution and rejected the defence version and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above and aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. R.C. Setia, Senior Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Randhir Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who appeared on behalf of the State and with their assistance I have also gone through the record of the case.

The principal argument which was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that S/Shri Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh have not supported the allegations of the prosecution as these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and in these circumstances it will be highly unsafe to convict the appellant on the statements of Iqbal Singh and Munsha Singh. The learned senior counsel submitted that S/Shri Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh were the independent witnesses and had these persons been examined by the prosecution, it would have put a sufficient light as to whether there was any recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the appellant. The argument raised by the learned senior counsel is not acceptable to this Court. It is true that Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh have not been examined by the prosecution but it depends from the character of one individual to the other. The association of Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh on the part of the Investigating Officer itself suggests that the intention of the Investigating Officer was honest when he tried to take the assistance of these persons. If for some valid reason Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh did not want to support the story of the prosecution, the fault does not lie with the State. Equally it can be said that the appellant too did not examine Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh in the trial Court so as to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the genuineness of the recovery. He should also take the courage in the examination of Avtar Singh and Sajjan Singh so as to tell under what circumstances the recovery of tainted money had been effected. It is also correct that the initial onus always lies upon the prosecution to prove the charge.

Now it will be seen whether the evidence and the quality of evidence which has been led by the prosecution is enough so as to sustain the conviction against the appellant. In such like cases the following ingredients are necessary :

i) Demand; and

ii) acceptance.

If it is established on the record that the appellant made a demand of the money and he accepted it with the intention to retain the same as a consideration for the issuance of certified copy of the jamabandi, certainly he can be convicted. Even the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that complainant Iqbal Singh approached him and made a request for the issuance of a certified copy of jamabandi. A reading of the statement of Iqbal Singh would show that he approached the appellant 2/3 days prior to 5.7.1985 and made a request for the issuance of certified copy of the jamabandi. It has also come in the statement of Iqbal Singh that at that time the appellant made a demand of Rs. 100/ but the bargain was struck for a sum of Rs. 50/. The relevant portion of the statement of Iqbal Singh can be quoted as follows :

"2 or 3 days prior to 5.7.1985, I approached the accused in the patwarkhana of the village for issuing copy of the jamabandi of my land to me. He told that the copy could not be issued without the payment of the bribe money. I told him that I cannot afford to give any bribe. The accused demanded Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification from me and later on the deal was struck at Rs. 50/. The accused agreed to supply me the copy of jamabandi on 5.7.1985 on my payment of Rs. 50/ as bribe money. I did not want to pay the bribe. On 5.7.85 I and Munsha Singh accused came to the office of Vigilance Department at Ludhiana and met Inspector Amar Singh there."

Shri Munsha Singh appeared as PW4 and he stated that Iqbal Singh PW met him in the bus stand and asked him to accompany to the office of Vigilance Department at Ludhiana as the appellant demanded Rs. 50/ from him as bribe money for issuing copy of jamabandi. Shri Munsha Singh has also deposed on oath that he was made a shadow witness of this occurrence and he was directed by the Investigating Officer to watch the proceedings which may go between the appellant and Shri Iqbal Singh complainant. Further it has come in the statement of Munsha Singh that he was to give the desired signal on the passing of the tainted money to the appellant. Shri Munsha Singh has corroborated in all material particulars the statement of Iqbal Singh. The relevant portion of the statement of Shri Munsha Singh can be quoted as follows :

"Iqbal Singh demanded copy of jamabandi from the accused and the latter demanded the bribe money from him. Then Iqbal Singh gave the bribe money P1, P2 and P3 to the accused and the latter gave the copy of jamabandi to him. After hearing their talk and seeing the passing of the money I placed my hand on my head."

Further the recovery of the tainted money has been proved from the statement of Inspector Amar Singh, Investigating Officer.

The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that when the alleged demand of Rs. 100/ was made by the appellant and when the demand was reduced to Rs. 50/, there is no corroboration to the statement of Iqbal Singh. This argument is dangerous to be accepted. Such like bargains take place in secrecy and isolation and in these circumstances it is too far for the law courts to presume that when the transaction with regard to the tainted money is going on between the culprit and the person affected, there would be an independent evidence. It will depend from person to person. Such like transactions invariably go in secrecy and always it is the intention of the bribe acceptor to confine in confidence with regard to his demand.

The point for determination is why Munsha Singh, Iqbal Singh and Amar Singh, Inspector are deposing against the appellant. The learned senior counsel has not been able to convince me on this aspect. Rather the record shows that Iqbal Singh was a landlord. He wanted the copy of the jamabandi in connection with the limit to be sanctioned by a bank and in normal circumstances he must have approached the appellant for the supply of the copy of jamabandi and the appellant wanted his own price. In these circumstances, I am inclined to place the implicit reliance upon the testimony of Iqbal Singh, Munsha Singh and Inspector Amar Singh and from their statements it stands proved that there was a demand of tainted money on behalf of the appellant and that the tainted money passed to the appellant who accepted it voluntarily by placing it inside the drawer. It was also recovered from the drawer. There is a further corroboration which proves that the tainted money actually passed to the appellant, who received it. His hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and the contents of the wash were sent to the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, who confirmed that the solution contained phenolphathalein powder.

It was then submitted in the alternative by the learned senior counsel that the appellant has now become an old man of 69 years. The incident took place as back as on 5.7.1985. The appellant is suffering the agony of the criminal proceedings for the last more than 14 years and in these circumstances there are sufficient grounds to reduce the sentence. On the contrary, it has been stated by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the appellant does not deserve any sympathy as he has been convicted in a corruption case. Rather he has submitted that the law Courts should not treat any of the accused in corruption case with leniency as the corruption is becoming a routine matter in the public life.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The argument of Mr. Randhir Singh is more on the moral side rather than the legal. It cannot be forgotten by us that it is the fundamental right of a person to have an expeditious trial and expeditious result. The appellant is suffering the agony of the criminal proceedings since July, 1985. He has become an old man of 69 years. Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act lays down that the Court has the power to award sentence less than the minimum for the special reasons to be recorded in this behalf. The special reasons in this case are that the recovery of the tainted money is not on the higher side; the petitioner was a Patwari, who might have been prompted to become little bit rich after acceptance of the tainted money; he has suffered the agony of the criminal proceedings for the last more than 14 years and even with his maintaining the conviction he is likely to lose his job and other benefits. In this view of the matter, I reduce the substantive sentence of the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and direct that he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay a fine of Rs. 250/. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days under this section of the Code. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

With above modification in the matter of sentence the appeal stands dismissed.

Let the copy of this judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.