Tarlochan Singh vs State of Punjab

K.C. Gupta, J.

This appeal has been instituted by Tarlochan Singh against judgement and order dated 6.8.1993 passed by Special Judge, Faridkot, whereby he was found guilty and convicted under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and sentenced to two years RI and a fine of Rs. 2000/. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for six months.

Briefly stated, the facts are that PW1 Gurdev Singh and his father Mukhtar Singh, residents of village Lambi owned about 30 Killas of land. The said land was irrigated by canal water through Mann minor. The appellant was the Canal Patwari of Lambi. Their turn of water was joint with Gurnam Singh, Hakam Singh and their sons Sukhpal Singh and Satpal Singh etc. However, PW2 wanted to get his turn of water separated from them. Therefore, he submitted an application to that effect in the office of District Collector, Canals, Bathinda. After about 8 or 10 days, the appellant met him at Bus Stand, Lambi and he showed that application to PW7 Gurdev Singh and asked him to come to him if he wanted to get the work done. Accordingly, PW7 approached him and he demanded Rs. 4000/ for doing his work. However, PW7 refused to pay Rs. 4000/ and at his request, the appellant agreed to accept Rs. 2000/.

On 6.7.1991, PW7 Gurdev Singh went to the Vigilance Office, Muktsar, where PW11 Gurmit Singh, Inspector met him. The Constable and one Sub Inspector were also present there. PW7 disclosed all the facts to him. He handed over Rs. 2000/ currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/ each who noted down the numbers thereof. He demonstrated to the complainant by putting water in a tumbler and a piece of paper in it. The colour of water did not change. Thereafter, he treated the paper with phenolphethaline powder and put the same in the water and the colour of the water turned pink.

PW7 Gurdev Singh made statement, Ex.PJ to Gurmit Singh, Inspector, which he signed at point PJ/1 after admitting the same to be correct. Gurmit Singh, Inspector, handed over the currency notes of Rs. 2000/ to the complainant vide memo Ex.PK after treating them with phenolphethaline powder. Thereafter, they proceeded in a car to Village Lambi. They stopped at Malout where Teja Singh, an employee, was joined. Then they went to Bus Stand, Lambi, and the car was stopped at some distance from Bus Adda.

The appellant used to sit at the shop of some Mistri. PW7 Gurdev Singh went to that shop followed by PW10 Naranjan Singh, Sub Inspector, who was detailed as shadow witness. Naranjan Singh, Sub Inspector, was ordered to give signal to the police party after the deal was struck by raising his hand on the head. The appellant was found sitting at the shop. PW7 Gurdev Singh offered Rs. 2000/ to him and he started counting the same but on seeing the Thanedar, Naranjan Singh threw the notes. Thereafter, the Vigilance Inspector Gurmit Singh reached there alongwith police party and secured the appellant. He prepared solution of water in a tumbler with sodium carbonate and got dipped the hands of Teja Singh but the colour of solution did not change. Then he put the hands of the appellant in that solution and its colour changed to light pink. The said solution was put into a nip, which was sealed by the Vigilance Inspector and was taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PN. The appellant was asked to pick up the notes and accordingly he picked up notes and handed over to Teja Singh, PW. The numbers of currency notes were compared with those written on memo Ex.PK and the same tallied. The said notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM attested by the witnesses.

Personal search of the appellant was taken and Rs. 625/, one pen and one wrist watch were recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO attested by the witnesses. The said currency notes were Exs.P1 to P20.

The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of the investigation, challan was put up in the Court of Special Judge, Faridkot.

Having made out a primafacie case, the appellant was charged under Section 13(2) of the Act on 10.1.1992, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove the allegation, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. He next stated that Gurdev Singh had tried to falsely plant some currency notes to him, to which he had resisted and in the scuffle, those currency notes came in contact with his hands and the same had fallen on the ground and then he was falsely implicated. In defence, he examined DW1, Pritam Singh, Assistant Assessment Clerk and DW2 Raj Pal Singh.

After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, learned Special Judge, Faridkot, found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 13(2) of the Act vide judgment dated 6.8.1993 and sentenced him vide order of even date as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

I have heard Sh. G.S. Bawa, counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.S. Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the respondent and carefully gone through the file.

Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence on file that the appellant had demanded money and on demand PW7 Gurdev Singh had given Rs. 2000/ as bribe for separating his turn of canal water. He further contended that in the absence of the demand of money from the complainant, the appellant was not liable to be sentenced. For this contention, he placed reliance on an authority of the Hon''ble Apex Court i.e. Subash Parbt Sonvane v. State of Gujrat, 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 188 (SC) in which it was observed that where the accused had accepted bribe from the complainant in the presence of witness but there was no evidence that the accused demanded money from the complainant, then conviction under Section 13(2)(1)(d)(i) could not be maintained and the same was liable to be setaside. In the present case, PW7 Gurdev Singh simply stated that on 6.7.1991, he went to the appellant who was sitting at the shop and paid Rs. 2000/ to him, who started counting but on seeing Naranjan Singh, he got suspicious and threw away the currency notes. The case of the appellant is that PW7 Gurdev Singh, who was known earlier to him forcibly wanted to give money to him but he resisted the attempt and in that attempt, his hands came in contact with the currency notes and in scuffle those currency notes fell down on the ground and there was no occasion for him to accept the same. PW10 Naranjan Singh, Sub Inspector, was the shadow witness. He did not state as to what transpired between PW7 Gurdev Singh and the appellant before Gurdev Singh handed over the money. He stated that Gurdev Singh had asked the appellant to do his job the appellant first demanded that Rs. 2000/ should be given to him and then he handed over the currency notes of Rs. 2000/. PW7 Gurdev Singh did not state that he had handed over the currency notes of Rs. 2000/ on demand to the appellant. Thus, the evidence of PW10 Naranjan Singh that Gurdev Singh had asked the appellant to do his work but the appellant asked him to first give Rs. 2000/ to him is not supported by PW7 Gurdev Singh. Moreover, it is not clear as to why PW1 Gurmit Singh detailed the Sub Inspector of Police as a shadow witness in the presence of PW8 Teja Singh. This only shows that Teja Singh was not present and his signatures were obtained afterwards. The very fact that the appellant had not put the amount in his pocket but had thrown away shows that he was not prepared to accept the same. Therefore, in view of the authority of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, I hold that offence under Section 13(2) of the Act is not made out as the element of demand is missing. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant demanded the money from PW7 Gurdev Singh for abusing his position as public servant.

Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt.