Supreme Court of India
Makhan Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 27 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR1994SC266, 1993CRILJ3551, AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 266, 1993 AIR SCW 3193
Author: G.N. Ray
Bench: G.N. Ray
JUDGMENT
1. There are two appellants. They were serving as Head Constables in the Police Station, Dhariwal. They were convicted and sentenced as under by the learned Special Judge, Jullundur.
Makhan Singh Appellant:
(1) R.I. for 21/2 years and a fine of Rs. 600/- or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months in respect of offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pertaining to head of charge firstly.
(ii) R.I. for one year under Section 161, I.P.C. in respect of head of charge fifthly.
(iii) R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two months, in respect of offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, relating to head of charge thirdly.
(iv) R.I. for one year under Section 161, I.P.C. in respect of head of charge seventhly.
(v) R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 350/-or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two months in respect of offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, relating to head of charge fourthly.
(vi) R.I. for one year under Section 161, I.P.C. in respect of head of charge eighthly.
(2) Joginder Singh Appellant:
(i) R.I. for 21/2 years and a fine of Rs. 150/-or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month in respect of offence of criminal misconduct Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pertaining to head of charge secondly.
(ii) R.I. for one year under Section 161, with respect to head of charge sixthly.
(iii) R.I. for two years and. a fine of Rs, 300/- or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two months in respect of the offence of criminal misconduct Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act relating to head of charge thirdly.
(iv) R.I. for one year Under Section 161, I.P.C., with regard to head of charge senventhly.
(v) R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 350/-or in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for two months in respect of offence of criminal misconduct Under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act relating to head of charge fourthly.
(vi) R. 1. for one year Under Section 161, I.P.C., with regard to head of charge eighthly.
2. The substantive sentences of both the appellants to run concurrently.
3. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the High Court.
4. The prosecution case is as follows:
On 23-5-78 both the appellants along with five constables went from the Police Station to Village Dadowal, where they raided the house of P.Ws. 1 and 3 in the presence of Karnail Singh, Member, Panchayat. They recovered a bottle of illicit liquor and a big "Dagh" belonging to the Gram Panchayat. The appellants threatened P.Ws. 1 and 3 that they would register a case of working still against them and demanded Rs. 2,000/-, if they wanted to escape their involvement in such a case. However, the amount was settled at Rs. 1,000/-. In the afternoon P.W. 2 son of P.W. 3 who happened to be there went for drawing Rs. 1,200/- from his bank account. P.W. 3 contributed Rs. 300/- and his son P.W. 2 contributed remaining Rs. 700/-. Thus the total amount of Rs. 1,000/- was handed over by P.W. 2 to Makhan Singh, accused.
5. On the same day, the appellants raided the house of P.W. 4 in the presence of his brother P.W. 5 and recovered small "drum of Lahan". The second appellant, Joginder Singh, demanded Rs. 400/- from P.W. 4 as he wanted to escape his involvement in the case of recovery. The amount was settled at Rs. 200/- and the same was handed over by P.W. 5 to the Joginder Singh.
6. Likewise on the same day, they raided another house belonging to P.W. 6 and there they took bribe. On the same day they raided the house of P.W. 9 and took bribe there also.
7. A complaint was lodged before P.W. 14 alleging that these appellants accepted illegal gratification. The case was investigated and the charge-sheet was laid and the inquiry was also initiated.
8. During the trial the appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of P.Ws, 1 and 9 and all these witnesses gave details of the demands and receipt of illegal gratification as staled above by the appellants. Others are all official witnesses.
9. Both the Courts below have considered the evidence of these witnesses and accepted their evidence.
10. The learned Counsel, however submits that the recovery of "Dagh" and "bottle of illicit liquor" have not been substantiated particularly in view of the evidence of some witnesses. This is a question of fact which was found to be proved by both the Courts below and we see no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
11. Now coming to the question of sentence the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1978 and both the appellants have admittedly lost their jobs and they have undergone trial for number of years and untill now they have suffered menial agony for having been convicted and the matter being pending here. Taking all those circumstances into consideration we, while confirming the convictions of the appellants, reduce substantive sentence under each count to three months' rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine along with default clause is, however, confirmed. Sentences are directed to run concurrently.
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.