Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh Aka Rajinder Kumar And ... vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2011
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA No.1002-SB of 2001
Date of Decision :28.1.2011
Rajinder Singh aka Rajinder Kumar and another
.......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present : Mr.Bipin Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Deepak Ghai, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. J S Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.9.2001, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections, 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each or in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half hears and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- each or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 5.9.1997, Amar Singh son of Parkash Chand, herein `the complainant' approached the CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 2 office of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Patiala and got recorded his statement, Exhibit PL, before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala to the effect that his father Parkash Chand is owner of five shops in village Devigarh and the electric connection was also in the name of his father. In the months of January/February, 1997, they received electric bill amounting to Rs. 1926/- but the same could not be paid. As a result of which, the electric connection was disconnected and thereafter the connection was not restored for many months. After some time, another bill to the tune of Rs.5,073/- was received. On that, the complainant visited the office of accused/appellant Rajinder Singh aka Rajinder Kumar, R.A. at Devigarh and enquired from him as to how the bill was so inflated. The accused Rajinder Singh told him that if he would pay a sum of Rs.400/- as illegal gratification, he would get it corrected and only Rs.3524/- would have to be paid. After negotiation, the accused agreed to accept a sum of Rs.300/-. On 4.9.1997, the complainant again went to accused/appellant Rajinder Singh aka Rajinder Kumar and asked him to return the bill after rectification. However, accused Rajinder Singh did not return the bill and after taking Rs.3524/- from him, told that he himself would get the bill deposited. On that, the complainant asked the accused/appellant Rajinder Singh to give him a receipt of the money so received. But the accused/appellant Rajinder Singh told the complainant that first he would have to pay the bribe money of Rs.300/-and then claim the receipt. The complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs.300/- on that day and returned back.
3. On the basis of above statement, Exhibit PL, formal FIR, Exhibit PL/1 was recorded. A raiding party headed by DSP Chaman Lal CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 3 was constituted. Rajiv Sood was joined in the raiding party as shadow witness, whereas Karamjit Singh, Inspector, Food & Civil Supplies was joined as official witness. The three currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each were handed over to the complainant, after applying phenolphthalein powder vide memo Exhibit PB, with the direction that the same would have to be paid to the accused Rajinder Singh on demand. The shadow witness, Rajiv Sood, was instructed that when the complainant would hand over the currency notes to accused/Rajinder Singh then he would give signal to the raiding party. On reaching the office of the accused, the complainant and shadow witness were deputed in the office of the accused as per directions and the others remained behind. The complainant entered the office of the accused/appellant Rajinder Singh and made payment of the currency notes to the accused/appellant Tarlok Chand as per instructions of accused Rajinder Singh. After receiving the signal from Rajiv Sood, DSP Chaman Lal alongwith other members of the raiding party reached on the spot and enquired about the tainted money from the accused/appellant, whereupon he (accused) disclosed that the tainted money was received by accused Tarlok Chand. The tainted money, wrapped in a paper, was recovered from a ledger lying on the table of the accused- appellant Tarlok Chand. Hands of the accused Rajinder Singh were got washed in a solution of Sodium Carbonate whereupon the colour of the water did not turn light pink. Thereafter the hands of accused Tarlok Chand were got washed in that very solution and the colour of solution turned to pink. The currency notes were sent for chemical examination.
4. After completion of the investigation, the accused/appellants were challaned and thereafter charge sheeted by the Special Judge, Patiala, CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 4 for the offence under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Act, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, Rajiv Sood, as PW1 (shadow witness), Sh. R.D.Vohra, Chief Accounts Officer, PSEB, Patiala, as PW2; Amar Singh, as PW3 (complainant); Karamjit Singh, Inspector, Food and Civil Supply, Grade-II, Samana, as PW4 (official witness); Heera Balab, LDC, PSEB, East Division, Patiala, as PW5; Meharban Singh, SDO, as PW6; Joga Singh, LDC, Reveneu Section, PSEB, as PW7; HC Gurbej Singh, as PW8; Harbans Singh Bedi, Deputy Chief Engineer, PSEB, Patiala, as PW9; DSP Chaman Lal, as PW10 (Investigating Officer) and C.Manjinder Singh, as PW11.
6. The accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. However, in defence, the accused did not examine any witness.
7. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as noticed in para 1 of this judgment.
8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order of learned trial Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal, which was admitted by this Court on 11.9.2001.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant Rajinder Singh aka Rajinder Kumar died and an application under Section 394 Cr. P.C. for leave to appeal was moved by his wife Chander Mohni. The said application was allowed by this Court on 25.5.2006 and Chander Mohni, wife of deceased/appellant CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 5 Rajinder Singh, was permitted to continue the appeal on behalf of Rajinder Singh aka Rajinder Kumar.
10. It has further been submitted that the complainant, Amar Singh, PW3, the shadow witness, Rajiv Sood, PW1 and official witness Karamjit Singh did not support the prosecution version. They were declared hostile and were cross-examined.
11. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was no material with the learned trial Court to convict the appellants. The order of conviction is based on presumptions. The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that presumption could be raised only if the prosecution proved that the appellants demanded and accepted bribe. In the absence of these two essential ingredients, no presumption could be raised.
12. It has further been submitted that there was no occasion with the appellants to ask for the bribe as the bill in question had already been corrected on 4.9.1997. The incident of giving bribe and accepting the bribe is alleged to have taken place on 5.9.1997. As per record, the bill in question had already been paid on 4.9.1997. Therefore, the learned counsel argues that there was no reason with the appellants on 5.9.1997 to go to the office of the appellants and pay bribe.
13. It has next been submitted that the tainted money was not recovered from the appellant Rajinder Singh. The hand wash process also indicates that he had no role in the instant case. The tainted money was allegedly recovered from the register lying on the table of accused/appellant Tarlok Singh. The fact that the register in question was in exclusive possession of this appellant is not established. Thus, the learned counsel contends that in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the tainted CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 6 money was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant Rajinder Singh.
14. Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellants were not identified by the prosecution witnesses including the complainant in the Court. The description of the accused/appellants given by the prosecution witnesses is at variance with the description of the appellants. Thus, the factum of identity of the appellants is not fully established.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. On demand by the appellant, the amount of bribe was given by the complainant to appellant Tarlok Singh, who counted the same and kept in the register lying on the table. The case of the prosecution is fully supported by two material witnesses, namely, Joga Singh, PW7 and DSP Chaman Lal.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
17. Admittedly, the complainant Amar Singh, PW3, shadow witness Rajiv Sood, PW1 and official witness Karamjit Singh, PW4 have not supported the prosecution version and were declared hostile. From the perusal of the cross-examination of complainant Amar Singh, it is made out that the complainant admitted that he suffered his statement, Exhibit PL, before DSP Chaman Lal, PW10 and that its contents were correct. This witness admitted his signatures on memo, Exhibit PB, whereby the incriminating currency notes after applying phenolphthalein powder were handed over to him by DSP Chaman Lal, PW10; memo of demonistration, Exhibit PC, memo, Exhibit PD, with regard to recovery of tainted money; memo, Exhibit PE, with regard to hand wash of accused Tarlok Chand; CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 7 memo of personal search of accused Tarlok Chand, Exhibit PF; memo, Exhibit PG, with regard to hand wash of Rajinder Kumar aka Rajinder Singh, Exhibit PH, whereby the bill in question was taken into possession and memo, Exhibit PH, with regard to personal search of the accused Rajinder Singh. It is further made out that this witness also admitted that when he went to the office of accused Rajinder Singh, he asked from him as to whether he had brought bribe money or not and that he replied in affirmative. However, this witness kept silent on the aspect that the accused Rajinder Singh had told him to hand over the tainted money to accused Tarlok Singh. The evasive attitude of the complainant confirms that the alleged incident took place.
18. The shadow witness, Rajiv Sood, PW1, has also admitted his signatures on Exhibits, PB to PJ as mentioned above. However, this witness has also stated that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers. But there is nothing on record which suggests that this witness has made any complaint to any authority in this regard.
19. The official witness Karamjit Singh, PW4, admitted in his cross-examination that he was introduced by DSP Vigilance to the complainant Amar Singh, PW3 and Rajiv Sood, PW1. He accompanied the raiding party to the office of the accused/appellants at Devigarh. He further admitted that after receiving the signal from the shadow witness i.e. Rajiv Sood, thereupon, he alongwith DSP Chaman Lal alongwith other members of the raiding party went inside the office. The accused Rajinder Singh was sitting on his chair and the complainant was standing by his side. The DSP Chaman Lal introduced himself to the accused/appellant Rajinder Kumar and asked about the tainted money, whereupon accused Rajinder Sngh told CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 8 him that the tainted money was received by the accused Tarlok Singh.
20. The above conduct of these witnesses shows that the alleged incident took place and they are suppressing the truth. This fact is further established from the statement of Joga Singh, PW7. As per his statement, the electric connection was in the name of father of the complainant and the same was removed. The father of the complainant moved an application for restoration of the electric connection and the same was marked to accused Rajinder Kumar, which suggests that the alleged incident took place. The accused/appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. did not mention anything against the Investigating Officer, which shows that the Investigating Officer had no grudge against him. Though, as per record, there is no demand by Rajinder Singh aka Rajinder Kumar nor acceptance of the bribe money by accused/appellant Tarlok Singh. The precise case of the prosecution is that on instructions from Rajinder Singh aka Rajinder Kumar, the tainted money was handed over to accused/appellant Tarlok Singh. The fact that he did not raise the demand and the report regarding the hand wash of accused/appellant Rajinder Singh was not positive, would not make any difference about the case of the appellant rather it goes to establish that the prosecution version is trustworthy.
21. Though the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case but it is a fact that the complainant repeatedly visited the office of the accused/appellant, who demanded bribe money from the complainant for doing the favour. Therefore, the stand taken by the complainant that the appellant is not same person, who accepted the tainted money, is highly improbable, as it is beyond one's comprehension that any stranger would sneak into Government office and occupy his seat in the absence of such an CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 9 employee. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is suppressing the truth and is trying to misguide the Court. The Court has to exercise extra caution while dealing with the persons who mould their conduct as per the exigency of the situation.
22. In some offices, sometimes corrupt officials make a joint pool to collect bribe money. One collects the bribe money and later on they share the booty. So the demand by one and recovery from another becomes irrelevant in such circumstances. Both appellants are liable as they have shared the common intention of each other.
23. In this case, the conduct of the complainant, shadow witness and official witness is very unfortunate. After taking the onerous responsibility of weeding out the corrupt official, they sided with the corrupt officials. It is on account of the conduct of such people, corruption in the Society has reached at an alarming stage. If this trend is not restricted, it would result into making a mockery of the legal system and the corrupt officials would never be able to face the consequences of their wrong doing. The official witness Karamjit Singh, PW4, shadow witness Rajiv Sood, PW1 and the complainant Amar Singh, PW3 have miserably failed to perform their duty as responsible citizens and thus have helped the bribe seeker. The official witnesses are not the laymen and fully understand implication of their acts. They have failed to maintain the faith reposed in them by their employer i.e. the State. As per the statement of shadow witness Rajiv Sood, PW1 that his signatures were obtained on the blank papers, the same appears to be an effort to rescue the appellants. There is nothing on record to suggest that he made any complaint in this regard to any authority. The tacit silence of the witness to help the accused/appellants CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 10 cannot be ignored and if ignored would encourage the corrupt official to continue their sinister doings and cause damage to the society and ultimately the common man. Accordingly, the State of Punjab shall proceed as per law against the witnesses, who have not supported the case of the prosecution.
24. In view of the fact that the Investigating Officer had no axe to grind as he had no previous animosity with the appellants and neither the appellants has taken such a ground in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C., the clever witnesses and the technicalities of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat justice, the same cannot stand in the endeavour to achieve substantial justice and reach the truth. Effort of the Court should be to observe extra caution while dealing with such clever witnesses so that they are not allowed to frustrate the process of law. The truth must prevail and corrupt officials, who want to play hide and seek with the Court, with the aid of clever prosecution witnesses, must be nailed.
25. It has come on record that on the complaint of Amar Singh, the complainant, the accused/appellant was arrested red handed by taking bribe money from the complainant. As per instructions of Punjab Government, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to the complainant vide Draft No.707274 dated 11.9.1998. As the complainant has not supported the prosecution case, the awarded money be recovered from him alongwith interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date it was credited in his account.
26. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the learned trial Court is maintained. The accused/appellants are stated to be on bail. CRA No.1002-SB of 2001 11 Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. They be taken into custody forthwith to serve their remaining sentence.
28 .1.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE Note: whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes ? No