Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeewan vs State Of Punjab on 14 December, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009
Date of decision 14.12.2012.
Jeewan
...... Appellant.
versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present :- Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
K.C.PURI, J.
Appellant-Jeewan has directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.2.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Amritsar vide which accused/appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( in short - the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 2 further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.06.2005, Sardool Singh complainant along with Balkar Singh came to the office of Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar and made the statement that about half year ago, he purchased seven killas of land from Satpal Kaur in village Boghal, Tehsil Ajnala alongwith tube-well connection No. M- 630. He has deposited the electricity bills regularly. About 20/25 days ago (from the date of registration of the case), he went to his tube well and saw that the wires of the tube-well connection were removed. On the same day, he met the S.D.O. and Xen, Punjab State Electricity Board, at Ajnala and informed about the incident. They replied that Jeewan is the Assistant-Lineman of his area. He should inform him about it and they would also speak to him. On the next day, he met Jeewan ALM and asked about the removal of the wires. Jeewan replied that the wires of his connection after removal have been installed to some other person and he would install his wires at the earliest. He met him in this connection several times but he did not install the wires.
3. It has been further alleged that on 29.6.2005, he along with Balkar Singh met Jeewan ALM and requested him to install the wires Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 3 because he has to sow the paddy crop. On this, Jeewan ALM said that there is no purpose to repeatedly visit like this. He has brought the wires for his tubewell but he demanded Rs.3000/- as bribe for installing the wires. He requested him that he could not pay the said amount of the bribe. Balkar Singh also said so. Then Jeewan finally told he would install the wires when he would pay the bribe of Rs.2700/-. He pretended for not having the money because he did not want to pay the bribe. Jeewan called him on 30.06.2005 at 12 noon at Ballarwal Dhusi bandh. He told that he would do his work after getting the bribe. The complainant and Balkar Singh appeared in the office of Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar, and produced the currency notes of Rs.2700/-. The statement of Sardool Singh was recorded and was read over to him. He signed the same in English in token of its correctness. Five currency notes were of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and two currency notes were in the denomination of Rs.100/-each. Their numbers were noted down and were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. It was ensured that the complainant is not having any other money or article. The smeared currency notes were handed over back to the complainant and was instructed that he would pay these currency notes of Rs.2700/- to Jeewan ALM on demand and he would not shake hands with him before and after the delivery of the currency notes. Balkar Singh was made as a shadow witness and was instructed to accompany Sardool Singh complainant to Jeewan ALM and to hear and see the conversation between them. When Jeewan after demand will receive the currency notes of Rs.2700/- towards illegal gratification then he would give a signal to the police party by Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 4 moving his right hand on his head. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station through C-Baljit Singh for registration of the case and the investigation commenced. DSP Kashmir Singh, Vigilance Bureau started investigation of the case and summoned Mela Ram, Block Primary Education Officer, Verka and Deepak Kumar, Clerk, Office of D.E.O., Amritsar as official witness being on duty. They were introduced with the complainant and the shadow witness and were informed about the matter. They were joined in the raiding party. Then the DSP in the presence of the witnesses arranged a glass of water and prepared the solution by adding sodium carbonate. The colour of the solution remained white. When a piece of paper smeared with phenolphthalein water was put in the solution the colour of the water turned pink. The witnesses were informed about the use of phenolphthalein powder. The demonstration memo was prepared. The raiding party was formed and proceeded in a Government jeep to village Ballarwal. The jeep was parked at a hidden place. The complainant and the shadow witness were sent to Dhushi Bandh. The raiding party followed them. After some time, the shadow witness gave the instructed signal. The DSP alongwith other police officials quickly reached Dhushi Bandh where the complainant, shadow witness and Jeewan ALM were present and were talking to each other. The complainant informed the DSP that he is Jeewan ALM who has received Rs.2700/- as bribe. Jeewan has put that money after counting in the pocket of his shirt and DSP introduced himself and informed him about the vigilance raid and instructed him not to move about. In the presence of witness, the DSP arranged a glass of water through official witness Mela Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 5 Ram for dipping the fingers of the hands of Jeewan ALM and got the solution prepared by putting sodium carbonate in the water. The colour of the solution remained white. When the fingers of the hands of the accused were put in the solution, turn by turn then the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was put in a nip and was sealed with the seal bearing impression KS. From the left pocket of the shirt of the accused, the currency notes of Rs.2700/- were recovered. The numbers of these currency notes were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes already noted down in the memo through official witness. The Investigating Officer also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. On return to the police station, the case property was deposited with the MHC. After completion of the investigation of the case and obtaining requisite sanction from the Competent Authority, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial.
4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs. The trial Court framed charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 7 of the Act against the accused. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Sardool Singh as ( PW-1 ), Balkar Singh as ( PW-2 ), Mela Ram as ( PW-3 ), Hira Singh as ( PW-4 ), Rachhpal Singh as ( PW-5 ), MHC Som Nath as ( PW-6 ), Narinder Singh LDC as (PW-7), DSP Kashmir Singh as (PW-
8) and closed the prosecution evidence.
Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 6
6. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating material and has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and no recovery was effected from him. He pleaded that he had complained about the running of illegal electric motors by the consumers falling under the area of complaint office of village Sarang Dev during the relevant period. The consumers of that area were annoyed with him and they after consulting with each other, procured the complainant and shadow witness and implicated him in this case. The complainant had no tubewell in his name and even the connection in question is not in the name of the complainant nor shadow witness. He is working as ALM and ALM has no power to remove or to re-connect the wires and it is the duty of the Junior Engineer. No complaint was moved by the consumer of the connection in question to the complaint office of P.S.E.B. or to any other Higher Authority. In his defence accused examined Amarpal Singh DW-1.
7. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Act vide judgment and order dated 4.2.2009, as aforesaid.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.2.2009, appellant -accused has preferred the present appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Sardool Singh is the complainant in the present case and he has alleged that illegal Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 7 gratification was demanded by the appellant in respect of re-connecting the motor connection. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to produce any document on the record that Sardool Singh was the owner of the meter in question. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
The case of the complainant is that the connection was in the land which was purchased by him. So, in these circumstances, the connection would be stood in the name of vendor of the land. The complainant and the shadow witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution on all material particulars. They have been cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on the record to discard their sworn testimony.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that appellant was simply working as Assistant Line Man and has no power to connect the connection. It is further submitted that only Junior Engineer has the power to connect or disconnect the electric connection with the electric wire. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission also.
The fact remains that raid was conducted and the tainted amount was recovered from the appellant. The complainant and the shadow witness have proved the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification. Other witnesses including the investigating officer have proved the recovery Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 8 along with the complainant and the shadow witness. So, in these circumstances, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification is not proved and in the absence of demand and acceptance the appellant cannot be convicted for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
As discussed above, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been proved by the complainant and the shadow witness. Both the witnesses have no axe to grind against the appellant. The suggestion given to these witnesses that appellant used to check the illegal connections and on that account the complainant and shadow witness have appeared against him, remains mere an assertion. No details of connection checked by the appellant or the time and place has been given by the appellant. So, that stand seems to have been taken just to save himself from the legal punishment.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that that the complainant has not submitted any written complaint to the authorities of electricity Board. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
It is not the prerequisite to make complaint against the corrupt Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 9 official.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that tainted amount has been put in his pocket forcibly.
I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission.
In this case a Gazetted Officer has joined the raid besides other persons. He would be the last person to involve the Government official in a false case, unless there is established motive for the same. No strong motive against the DSP or other official witnesses has been alleged.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is discrepancy in the testimony of the official witnesses regarding the fact that who brought the water in the glass. So, the prosecution story is doubtful, I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission also.
The minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of truthful witnesses.
So far as authorities Balwantsinh Dipsinh Vaghela versus State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 511 ; Pawan Kumar versus State of Punjab reported in 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 272 ; The State of Punjab versus Chhajju Ram reported in 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal ) page 425 ; A Venkatachalam versus State, rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Det-CC-1, Adayar, Chennai-600020 2012 (1) RCR Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 10 (Criminal_ page 328 ; Narendra Champaklal Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) page 974 and Mukut Bihari and another vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 980 are concerned ratio deci dendi of these cases is that accused cannot be convicted without proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. However, all these authorities are distinguishable on the facts of the present case as in the present case, demand and acceptance have been proved by the complainant and shadow witness.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant is facing trial since 2005 i.e. more than seven years. It is further contended that he has lost his job due to the present case. He is the sole bread winner of the family. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence.
The corruption is eating the root of the society. At the same time, the Court has to consider the fact that the appellant is facing trial for the last more than seven years. So, in these circumstances, the sentence of appellant under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Act stands reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year instead of two years, awarded by the trial Court.
However, the sentence of fine awarded under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act stands affirmed. However, both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
The accused/appellant is stated to be on bail. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. Criminal Appeal No.S.419 SB of 2009 11
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE December 14 , 2012 sv