Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manohar Lal Sachdeva vs The State (Through C.B.I.) on 29 April, 2011
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997
Date of Decision : April 29, 2011
Manohar Lal Sachdeva
.....Appellant
Versus
The State (through C.B.I.)
....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate
for the C.B.I.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
By a common judgment, the Court intends to dispose of the present appeal as well as Criminal Appeal S-719-SB of 1997 filed by Subash Chander Narula as both of them have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 28.8.1997 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Punjab, Patiala.
Manohar Lal Sachdeva appellant in the present appeal and Subhash Chander Narula, appellant in the connected appeal were sent up for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC and 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the prosecution, Manohar Lal Sachdeva was working as AG-I (Accounts) while Subhash Chander Narula as AG-II in the office of District Manager, FCI, Ferozepur.
Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -2- Complainant Gurdeep Singh was Manager of firm M/s Bhagat Commission Agents, Gobar Mandi, Ferozepur. This firm used to purchase wheat etc. from the farmers and sell it to agencies like FCI, PUNSUP, MARKFED, etc. and charge commission from the sale proceeds. The head office of firm was at Ferozepur, while its branch offices were at Mandi Bareke and Mandi Bage-ke-Pipal. On 13.5.1995, the firm sold 373 bags of wheat to the FCI from Bareke Centre. Ashwani Kumar, who was working as Quality Control Inspector at Mandi Bareke had purchased this wheat through the firm. The price of 373 bags of wheat came to Rs.1,27,566/-, including commission. The bill on form-I was prepared for this amount in the evening of 13.5.1995 and given to Ashwani Kumar, Quality Control Inspector. Three bill forms were attached with the same. Those had been supplied in blank by the FCI and filled in by the firm. One bill form was retained by the Quality Control Inspector while two other bill forms were meant for District Manager's office at Ferozepur. Weight Check memo was attached with the bills. These documents were passed by Ashwani Kumar, Quality Control Inspector for payment and given to complainant Gurdeep Singh on 16.5.1995. The complainant carried these documents to the office of District Manager, FCI, Ferozepur and submitted to Subhash Chander Narula in Accounts Branch. The duty of Subash Chander Narula was to pass the bills whereafter Manohar Lal Sachdeva was to pass the cheque. Manohar Lal Sachdeva told the complainant to come on the next day for collecting the cheque from him.
Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -3- On 17.5.1995, complainant approached Manohar Lal Sachdeva in his office. Subhash Chander Narula was also present there. Both of them used to sit in one room. Manohar Lal Sachdeva told the complainant that he had already received several cheques from him and as the season was coming to an end, he should pay him his due share. Manohar Lal Sachdeva demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for issuing cheque of Rs.1,27,566/-. The complainant protested as the firm had to meet other expenses also. At this, Manohar Lal Sachdeva reduced the demand of bribe to Rs.400/- and asked the complainant to come on the next day with the said amount and for collecting the cheque which would be ready. The complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe. He, however, made a false promise with Manohar Lal Sachdeva that he would meet him on 18.5.1995 and pay the bribe before collecting the cheque. The complainant returned to Mandi Bareke where he met PW Rakesh Kumar and apprised him about the entire episode. Rakesh Kumar advised him not to give bribe and instead to approach the Vigilance Office at Ferozepur.
On the morning of 18.5.1995, the complainant and Rakesh Kumar went to the office of Vigilance Bureau, where they met DSP Ramandeep Singh. The complainant made a statement regarding the demand of bribe by Manohar Lal Sachdeva for issuing the cheque in respect of the sale price of wheat, although he did not want to give the bribe. Statement Ex. PE of the complainant was recorded. The complainant produced Rs.400/- in the denomination Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -4- of Rs.100/- before DSP Ramandeep Singh. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the same. Tainted currency notes were handed over to the complainant. Demonstration was given before the complainant and Rakesh Kumar. DSP Ramandep Singh whose hands were smeared with phenolphthalein powder washed his hands in solution of water and sodium carbonate which turned pink. The DSP then washed the hands with soap. Instructions were given to the complainant to hand over the tainted currency notes to Manohar Lal Sachdeva on his demand and not to shake hands with him. PW Rakesh Kumar was instructed to act as a shadow witness. A Constable was sent with the statement of the complainant for getting the case registered in Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. FIR Ex.PW4/2, accordingly, came into existence. PW Shamsher Singh, Junior Engineer, was joined in the raiding party, whereas the complainant and Rakesh Kumar were sent in advance to approach Manohar Lal Sachdeva in his office. DSP Ramandeep Singh, Shamsher Singh, JE and other vigilance officials took position at a distance of 50/60 yards from the said office to wait for the signal.
The complainant and Rakesh Kumar entered the office room where both the accused, namely, Manohar Lal Sachdeva and Subhash Chander Narula were present. The complainant demanded the cheque from Manohar Lal Sachdeva, who enquired from him as to whether he had brought the money. The complainant replied in the affirmative and took out the tainted currency notes for Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -5- handing them over to Manohar Lal Sachdeva. In the meantime, Manohar Lal Sachdeva took out the cheque book from the drawer of the table and started searching for cheque of the complainant. The complainant wanted to hand over the tainted currency notes to Manohar Lal Sachdeva but the latter stated that the same be handed over to Subhash Chander Narula by saying that they both were one and the same. Subhash Chader Narula received the tainted currency notes from the complainant and after counting, placed them inside the drawer of his table. Manohar Lal Sachdeva gave the cheque to the complainant. Rakesh Kumar had watched all the proceedings. He then went out of the room and gave the appointed signal. Raid was thereafter conducted by DSP Ramandeep Singh. Both Manohar Lal Sachdeva and Subhash Chander Narula, besides complainant Gurdeep Singh and Rakesh Kumar were present in the office room. DSP Ramandeep Singh disclosed his identity and inquired from Manohar Lal Sachdeva if he had accepted the bribe money. The complainant apprised DSP Ramandeep Singh that he had handed over the bribe to Subhash Chander Narula under the directions of Manohar Lal Sachdeva and that Subhash Chander Narula had kept the bribe money in the drawer of his table. The DSP directed the officials accompanying him to capture both wrists of Subhash Chander Narula. Solution of water and sodium carbonate was prepared. Hands of Shamsher Singh were washed in the same but the colour did not change. Then fingers of both hands of Subhash Chander Narula were dipped in Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -6- the solution and the colour turned pink. The solution was preserved in a nip which was duly sealed. The seizure memo. was prepared. The drawer of the table of Subhash Chadner Narula was searched. Shamsher Singh, J.E. picked up the tainted currency notes lying there. The numbers of the currency notes matched with those written in memo prepared earlier. The recovered notes were taken into possession by way of a memo. The personal search of Subhash Chander Narula was conducted and Rs.2,087/- recovered from him. Personal search of Manohar Lal Sachdeva was also conducted but nothing was recovered. The complainant produced before DSP Ramandeep Singh the cheque, which was given to him by Manohar Lal Sachdeva and it was taken into possession. Cheque book was also recovered from the drawer of the table of accused Manohar Lal Sachdeva. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Supplementary statement of the complainant was also recorded. Both the accused were formally arrested. The nip containing hand wash was sent for analysis and was found to be mixture of water, sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder.
After obtaining sanction from the competent authority i.e. Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Punjab, Chandigarh, the prosecution presented the challan in the Court against the accused for their trial. They were charged for the aforementioned offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -7- Gurdeep Singh (complainant), PW2 Rakesh Kumar (shadow witness), PW3 Shamsher Singh, JE (recovery witness), PW4 D.S.P. Ramandeep Singh, PW5 Ashwani Kumar, Assistant Manager, PW6 A.K. Singal, Assistant Manager (Accounts) and PW7 Inspector Hawa Singh, CBI. Various documents, upon which the prosecution placed its reliance, were also brought on the record.
When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the prosecution allegations. Accused Manohar Lal Sachdeva admitted that on 18.5.1995 he was working as A.G.-I (Accounts) in the office of District Manager, FCI, Ferozepur and, as such, a public servant. He admitted that it was his duty to prepare the cheques on the basis of bills which were passed. He stated that he never demanded bribe money from Gurdeep Singh complainant for issuing him cheque for Rs.1,27,566/-. He stated that the cheque was prepared by him on 17.5.1995 and was handed over to Gurdeep Singh complainant on 17.5.1995 itself. Gurdeep Singh complainant put the date 18.5.1995 lateron on the counter foil of the cheque at the instance of the police. He further stated that he never directed Gurdeep Singh complainant to hand over the bribe money to Subhash Chander accused. No money was recovered from the drawer of the table of Subhash Chander accused. The accused took the plea that there was one commission agent by the name of Dharampal at Ferozepur. He wanted that his work should be done by the officials of the office of FCI on priority basis. He was not obliged. He felt annoyed with the officials of the FCI. He put forward Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -8- Gurdeep Singh complainant and got this case foisted against the accused. Regarding the sanction order, it was stated that the same was invalid. It had not been passed by the competent authority.
Similarly, accused Subhash Chander Narula admitted that on 18.5.1995 he was working as A.G.-II in the office of District Manager, FCI Ferozepur and, as such, a public servant. He stated that he passed the bill of firm M/s Bhagat Commission Agents for Rs.1,27,566/- and sent it to the Assistant Manager for approval and, thereafter, his duty was over and he was not to deal with the documents any more. The Assistant Manager used to send the documents to Manohar Lal accused for preparing the cheques and thereafter the Assistant Manager would sign the cheques. The accused stated that the case was false. He never accepted any bribe money from Gurdeep Singh complainant, under the direction of accused Manohar Lal Sachdeva. He stated that the bribe money was not recovered from him. He took the plea that he was away to another room of the office regarding official work and when he returned, Gurdeep Singh was already sitting on his chair. Gurdeep Singh stood up and shook hand with him and then a few police officials came inside. Gurdeep Singh handed over currency notes to one police officer saying that he had taken them out from the drawer. According to the accused, he and Manohar Lal Sachdeva accused were taken to the office of Vigilance Bureau and a false case was made out against them. Regarding the sanction for prosecution in this case, he stated that the same was invalid. It was Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -9- not passed by the competent authority.
In their defence, the accused examined DW1 Bharat Kumar, DW2 Navdeep Gupta, Document Expert and DW3 Subash Chand Arora.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted the appellants for the offences for which they stood charged. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Feeling aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, both the accused filed their respective appeals in which they are on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no corroboration to the testimony of PW1 Gurdeep Singh when he stated that on 17.5.1995 appellant Manohar Lal Sachdeva Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -10- had demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from him for issuing the cheque or that the demand was thereafter reduced to Rs.400/-. Therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW Gurdeep Singh to hold that such a demand had been made.
While lodging the FIR, complainant Gurdeep Singh stated that when he reached the FCI office at Ferozepur on 17.5.1995 he contacted Manohar Lal Sachdeva for collecting the cheque. At this Manohar Lal Sachdeva told him that the complainant had not given any share out of the cheques earlier given to him and as the season was coming to an end, he be paid Rs.500/- as bribe. The complainant expressed his helplessness in paying the said amount by stating that his firm had to bear other expenses also. On this, Manohar Lal Sachdeva reduced the demand to Rs.400/-. Inspite of the demand being reduced the complainant was still not willing to pay the bribe. Accordingly, he met Rakesh kumar on 18.5.1995 and apprised him about the demand. Said Rakesh Kumar advised him not to give bribe and rather to approach the vigilance department. While appearing as PW1 Gurdeep Singh stated that after making the false promise with Manohar Lal Sachdeva to pay him the bribe money, he apprised Rakesh Kumar of the whole affair and Rakesh Kumar advised him not to give illegal gratification and, instead, matter be brought to the notice of the Vigilance Department and such officials be got arrested. PW2 Rakesh Kumar also testified that complainant Gurdeep Singh had met him and told him that he Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -11- had gone to the office of the FCI where Manohar Lal Sachdeva was demanding Rs.400/- from him as bribe for issuing him the cheque. Despite cross-examination, the defence could not elicit any material from PW2 Rakesh Kumar that no such information was received by him from complainant Gurdeep Singh. There was, thus, ample corroboration to the testimony of PW1 Gurdeep Singh when he stated that Manohar Lal Sachdeva had demanded bribe on 17.5.1995.
Mere fact that PW2 Rakesh Kumar was a close friend of PW1 Gurdeep Singh is no ground to hold that his testimony can not be believed. Complainant Gurdeep Singh could have brought to the notice of his close friend only about the illegal demand of bribe made by the accused and intention of not paying the said bribe and instead informing the vigilance officials. He would not have proclaimed to the entire world that he was going to request vigilance officials for arranging a trap so as to nab the officials who were indulging in getting bribe for release of the cheque.
Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there was no occasion for Manohar Lal Sachdeva to have asked for bribe from the complainant for release of the cheque as earlier to the said cheque, the complaint had received a number of cheques and at that time no bribe had been demanded from him.
From the testimony of PW1 Gurdeep Singh it stands amply proved that though Manohar Lal Sachdeva had not made any Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -12- demand for bribe earlier yet he had demanded bribe from the complainant for the first time due to the reason that the season was coming to an end and, therefore, he would not be in a position to find an occasion once again for demanding the bribe.
Learned counsel for Manohar Lal Sachdeva also submitted that his client had already handed over the cheque in question to the complainant on 17.5.1995 and obtained his signatures on the counter-foil of the said cheque on that day. Later on, the complainant, at the instance of the vigilance, put the date as 18.9.1995. In this regard he has drawn the attention of the Court to the counter-foil of cheque No.769838, which is in question, where on its reverse side the complainant had put his signatures but the date mentioned by him was in a different ink.
In his cross-examination PW1 Gurdeep Singh denied the suggestion that on 17.5.1995, when he went to the office of the FCI he had received the cheque in question after signing the receipt in token thereof. He identified the said cheque which he had collected on 18.5.1995 by putting the date 18.5.1995 alongwith his signatures on the counter-foil. He further stated that he wrote the date with the same pen which he had used for putting signatures. He denied that there was difference in the shade of the ink used for signatures. He also denied that he had signed the counter-foil of the cheque on 17.5.1995 and put the date 18.5.1995 on 18.5.1995 at the instance of the police. He went on to depose that the cheque Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -13- was shown to him by Manohar Lal Sachdeva on 17.5.1995 but it was not delivered to him.
The defence had examined DW2 Navdeep Gupta, Document Expert, who deposed that the date on the back side of the counter-foil was with dark blue ball pen ink while the date 18.5.1995 was written with royal blue ball pen ink. The date written with royal blue ball pen ink was of light shade with less pressure. The signatures were with broad stroke having broad tip of the writing instrument whereas the stroke of the date was thin with comparatively thiner tip of writing instrument. Ink was very shining in the signature as compared to the ink used for putting the date. When cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he could not say if the signatures and date were put simultaneously or at different time. However, the evidence of DW2 Navdeep Gupta, which was merely an opinion, cannot take place of the substantive evidence, especially when PW1 Gurdeep Singh had stated that he had signed the reverse side of the counter-foil and put the date on 18.5.1995.
Learned counsel representing Subhash Chander Narula also submitted that the name of his client did not figure in the FIR nor any allegation levelled against him at that point of time. Even no demand for bribe was said to have been made by Subhash Chander Narula. At the most, he could be said to have accepted the money at the instance of Manohar Lal Sachdeva. In any case, his complicity in the crime was not established.
Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -14- From the testimony of PW1 Gurdeep Singh and PW2 Rakesh Kumar, it stands established that it was Manohar Lal Sachdeva who had demanded the amount of bribe before delivering the cheque to the complainant. As the complainant apprised him that he had brought the money and wanted to hand over the same, Manohar Lal Sachdeva told him to pay the bribe to Subhash Chander Narula as he himself was busy in locating the cheque. Manohar Lal Sachdeva also told Gurdeep Singh to hand over the money to Subhash Chander Narula saying that they both were one and the same. It was upon this assertion of Manohar Lal Sachdeva that Subhash Chander Narula received the bribe money from Gurdeep Singh. He counted the currency notes and placed them inside the drawer of his table. The tainted currency notes were thereafter recovered from the drawer of the table of Subhash Chadner Narula when it was searched by PW3 Shamsher Singh, Junior Engineer. There is, thus, sufficient proof regarding the complicity of Subhash Chander Narula in the crime.
Learned counsel for both the appellants had also argued that one Dharam Pal, Commission Agent had been insisting for getting preferential treatment in the matter of receiving the payment from the FCI office and when the appellants declined to extend him the said benefit, he falsely implicated them in the present case.
Apart from the bald suggestion put forward by the Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -15- defence to Gurdeep Singh, there is no material available on the record that said Dharam Pal had been insisting for getting preferential treatment at the hands of the appellants. On the other hand, Manohar Lal Sachdeva, had demanded bribe for releasing the cheque to the complainant. Both Manohar Lal Sachdeva and Subhash Chander Narula used to sit in one room which was their office. When PW1 Gurdeep Singh went to their office on 18.5.1995 and on demand wanted to pay the bribe, Manohar Lal Sachdeva told him to pay the same to Subhash Chander Narula as he himself was busy in locating the cheque. At this, Subhash Chander Narula accepted the bribe and put those notes in the drawer of his table from where they were recovered. The hand wash of Subhash Chander Narula also confirmed the fact that he had handled the tainted currency notes.
Learned counsel for the appellants finally submitted that their clients have been facing the agony of prosecution for the last more than 15 years and on account of their conviction in the present case, they are likely to be dismissed from service. Therefore, their substantive sentences of imprisonment be reduced.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment of two years imposed upon the appellants for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is on the higher side. Ends of Crl. Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 -16- justice would be amply met if the sentence of imprisonment on both the counts is reduced from two years to one year.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment and fine for the offence under Section 120-B is maintained. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years imposed upon them for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and similar sentences of imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences of fine alongwith their default clauses for the said offences are maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment to the extent indicated above, both the appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal S-702-SB of 1997 and Criminal Appeal S-719-SB of 1997 fail, and are dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
April 29, 2011 JUDGE
satish