Tarsem Lal vs State of Punjab

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

Tarsem Lal appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, and 5(1)(d) punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under both the counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under the latter offence, by the learned Special Judge, Bathinda, vide his judgment and order dated 15th December, 1982. Hence, this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The prosecution case as set up at the trial is that Ganda Singh (P.W. 4) wanted to go to Canada in connection with the marriage of his daughter Daler Kaur and for that purpose he wanted to have birth certificates of his son Jagtar Singh, two daughters Gurcharan Kaur and Sav Kaur, wife Chand Kaur and also for himself. It is alleged that his wife died during that period and the birth certificates of his children were given to him but his own birth certificate was not given to him. Ganda Singh P.W. filed another application (Exhibit PK) for getting his birth certificate.

P.W. Ganda Singh then contacted the appellant on 19th March, 1979 and asked him for his certificate. The appellant demanded Rs. 20/ as illegal gratification to do the needful. Since Ganda Singh P.W. did not like to pay illegal gratification, he contacted Hari Singh, Vigilance Inspector in his office at Bathinda and narrated him the whole incident. PW Hari Singh, Vigilance Inspector, recorded statement (Exhibit PL), on the basis of which case was registered against Tarsem Lal appellant at Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda. Two currency notes of Rs. 10/ denomination were produced by Ganda Singh P.W. before the Vigilance Inspector. The Vigilance Inspector applied phenolpathelein powder to the currency notes and also initialled them. He then organised the raid party consisting of some Police Officials besides Ganda Singh (P.W. 4) and Buta Singh (P.W. 5), who was directed to give the Signal after the tainted currency notes were passed on to the appellant. After entering the numbers of the currency notes in the sapurdgi (Exhibit PM), the Vigilance Inspector handed back the currency notes to Ganda Singh P.W. The Vigilance Inspector gave a demonstration to Ganda Singh P.W. by preparing a solution in which sodium carbonate was added in a glass of water and applied phenolpathelein powder to a piece of paper, which he had applied to the tainted currency notes, and dipped that paper in the solution, as a result of which the colour of that solution turned pink and after showing the demonstration, the solution was destroyed. Demonstration memo. (Exhibit PN) was prepared.

The raiding party then left to the Office of the Civil Surgeon, where the appellant was working as a Statistical Assistant, Ganda Singh (P.W. 4) and Buta Singh (P.W. 5) then went inside the office of the appellant. The remaining members of the raiding party kept behind. On demand by the appellant, Ganda Singh handed over the tainted money to him and then the appellant went inside the room and put the tainted currency notes in the left pocket of his paint. Ganda Singh (P.W.4) then placed application (Exhibit PK) and the challan form on the table of the appellant. In the meantime Buta Singh (P.W. 5) gave the proposed signal to the rest of the members of the raiding party, who then came to the office of the appellant. The Vigilance inspector disclosed his identity and called the Superintendent of the office of the Civil Surgeon, Bhatinda. The Vigilance Inspector then searched the person of the appellant and recovered the tainted currency notes (Exhibits P1 and P2) from the front left pocket of the pant of the appellant and handed over the sapurdgi memo to the Superintendent and Buta Singh P.W. for the comparison of the numbers of the currency notes with the memo, which tallied. The currency notes were then put into an envelop and were sealed with the seal mark `RS'' and the same were taken into possession vide memo. (Exhibit PO). Thereafter, the Vigilance Inspector prepared a solution in a glass of water by adding sodium carbonate powder in which the hands of the appellant were got washed as a result of which the colour of that solution turned pink and the same was put in a phial (Exhibit P3). Thereafter, another similar solution was prepared in which the pocket of the pant of the appellant was dipped, as a result of which the colour of that solution also turned pink. The same was also put into a phial (Exhibit P5). After completion of the other formalities, the appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced as stated above.

At the trial the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He also produced in defence Harnek Singh (D.W. 1) and Balwinder Singh, Moharrir Head Constable (D.W. 2).

The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Ganda Singh (P.W. 4) complainant, Buta Singh (P.W. 5), Shadow witness, and Hari Singh, Vigilance Inspector (P.W.6). These witness have supported the prosecution version as given in the earlier part of the judgment, but no reliance can be placed on their testimony. Ganda Singh (P.W.4), as is clear from his admission in the crossexamination, is a man of shady character. His admission is as follows :

"I was convicted for two years for causing the injuries to Tara Singh u/s 326 IPC. I was prosecuted in a murder case of village Goniana in which I was acquitted. I was also prosecuted for the murder of Tarlochan Singh of Jullundur alongwith Inspector Ishar Singh of CIA Staff, Bhatinda and one Bakhtaur Singh in that case, I was also acquitted. I was a witness regarding the recovery from Naib Tehsildar Balbir Singh who was prosecuted in a corruption case. I was shadow witness in that case. I was a complainant in other corruption case against Amrik Singh Overseer of Canal Department prior to the present occurrence who was convicted in that case. I was a witness in another corruption case State v. Darshan Kumar S.D.O. Electricity against whom the enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department. The aforesaid cases against Balbir Singh and Amirk Singh were investigated by the Vigilance staff Bhatinda. All the aforesaid cases are earlier to the present occurrence. I was also witness for the Excise and Opium case against the aforesaid Balbir Singh."

Thus it is clear from his record that he was prosecuted for the murder of one Tarlochan Singh of Jullundur. He was also convicted for an offence under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also prosecuted in a murder case of village Goniana. Further he was a witness in a corruption case against one Naib Tehsildar Balbir Singh. There he acted as a shadow witness. Besides that he was complainant in a corruption case against Amrit Singh Overseer of Canal Department. He was a witness in another corruption case State v. Darshan Kumar S.D.O. Electricity. The aforesaid cases of Balbir Singh and Amrit Singh were investigated by the Vigilance Staff, Bhatinda. All the aforesaid cases are earlier to the present occurrence. Thus no reliance can be placed on such a witness. Moreover the birth certificates of two daughters and one son of Ganda Singh complainant were supplied and it is highly improbable that the appellant will demand Rs. 20/ for the supply of his birth certificate only. If the appellant was to demand illegal gratification for preparing the birth certificate of Ganda Singh complainant, he would have also done so when he had supplied the birth certificates of his wife, daughter and son. But he did not do so in their cases. Buta Singh P.W. 5, who acted as a shadow witness, is also not an independent person. On his testimony implicit reliance cannot be placed. He was working as a clerk in Public Health Department, Bhatinda. His office is one Kilometer away from the Police Station. In such cases it is always advisable that some independent persons from the public should be associated while conducting raids. Public at large is against corruption and there can be no difficulty in associating publicmen in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the application (Exhibit PK), is not initialled by him. It was handled by another official in the department. The application (Exhibit PK) is also signed and dated 30th January 1979, along with other applications. Thus the version given by Ganda Singh (P.W.4) that he was asked by appellant to give another application is falsified, and the prosecution has not produced another application on the record. Thus on the basis of the evidence on record, it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge are set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.