Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal 806-SB of 1996
Date of Decision : March 30, 2010
Ranbir Singh
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.1996 passed by Special Judge, Jind, the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each of the two counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
According to the prosecution, on 13.9.1994 complainant Dharam Singh moved an application Ex. PD before Hari Singh, DSP, State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar alleging therein that he alongwith eight farmers was getting energy from a common transformer to their tube-
Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -2- wells in village Ganga Tehri, which got burnt and they were asked to pay Rs.1,000/- as bribe to get the burnt transformer replaced. The said transformer also got burnt due to heavy load. The complainant alongwith others moved an application Ex. PC before the SDO, HSEB, Pillu Khera for its replacement, which was marked to the appellant, who was working as an Assistant Foreman and also holding the additional charge of Junior Engineer. The appellant was demanding Rs.600/- as bribe from the complainant and others for replacing the transformer but they were not willing to pay this amount to him. On receipt of the aforesaid application Ex. PD, DSP Hari Singh moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Jind and, accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner gave permission to conduct the raid and directed SDM Safidon to lead the raiding party. Thereafter, DSP Hari Singh sent ruqa Ex. PL to State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar through a Constable on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PL/1 was registered against the appellant.
Further case of the prosecution was that DSP Hari Singh contacted Shri R.B.Langyan, the then SDM, Safidon and apprised him of the facts of the case and requested him to accompany the raiding party. Thereafter, the DSP delivered a paper to the complainant after applying phenolphthalein powder and he was asked to handle it. The hands of the complainant were then washed in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of which turned pink. The pink solution was transferred into two nips Exs. P7 and P8, which were converted into a sealed parcel and Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -3- taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PE. The memo. was attested by the witnesses. Six notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each were handed over by the complainant to the DSP, who after applying phenolphthalein powder, recorded their numbers in the entrustment memo. Ex. PF and handed them over to the complainant. Prem Singh was asked by the DSP to act as a shadow witness. Thereafter, the raiding party went to the office of SDO, HSEB, Pillu Khera where the complainant and shadow witness were asked to contact the appellant. Prem Singh, shadow witness was also asked to give the required signal after passing of the money by the complainant to the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant entered in the office of the appellant, who was found sitting on his seat. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs.600/- which was given by the complainant and as soon as money was paid to the appellant, Prem Singh gave the required signal to the raiding party upon which all the members of the raiding party reached the spot. The appellant was caught red handed while holding the currency notes in his right hand. The currency notes were taken into possession from him. The right hand of the appellant was put in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of which turned pink. The said liquid was put in two nips, which were sealed with seal 'HS' and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PH. The numbers of the currency notes recovered from the appellant were compared which tallied with the numbers mentioned in the entrustment memo. Ex. PF. The same were converted into a sealed parcel with seal 'HS' and taken Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -4- into possession vide memo. Ex. PG, which was duly attested by the witnesses. The DSP also took into possession application Ex. PC which was submitted for replacement of the burnt transformer. The said application bore endorsement Ex. PC/1 of the SDO, HSEB, Pillu Khera dated 11.9.1994 calling upon the appellant to check the load, prepare the estimate already framed and charge penalty where unauthorized load was checked. The said application was taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PI. The DSP prepared the rough site plan Ex. PM of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The appellant was arrested. The DSP deposited the case property with the MHC with seals intact. Jai Narain Ranga DSP/SHO, State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar also partly investigated the case, who recorded the statements of Inspector Kuldeep Singh and MHC Balbir Singh on 23.11.1994. On 13.6.1995, he also recorded the statement of Rajpal Singh, SDO.
Upon completion of investigation and presentation of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Special Judge, charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 HC Balbir Singh, PW2 Inspector Kuldeep Singh, State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar, PW3 complainant Dharam Singh, PW4 Raj Pal, SDO, HSEB, Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -5- Narwana, PW5 Baru Ram, PW6 Shri R.B.Langyan, SDM, Tosham, PW7 Prem Singh, PW8 Jai Narain Ranga, DSP and PW9 Hari Singh, DSP. The report Ex. PN of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban was tendered in evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution case in toto and alleged false implication.
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 and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statements of PW3 Dharam Singh, who was the trap witness and PW7 Prem Singh, who was the shadow witness, are not corroborated by any independent evidence. No material is available on the file to show as to what conversation had taken place between PW3 Dharam Singh and the appellant before the first demand for bribe was made by the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.600/- as bribe from PW3 Dharam Singh for replacing the burnt transformer. However, it has appeared in the testimony of PW3 Dharam Singh that the appellant had asked him to pay a sum of Rs.600/- as illegal gratification. Further, the appellant has admitted the recovery of the tainted money from him, besides having received the sum from PW3 Dharam Singh by stating that the same was the cost of replacement of Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -6- the burnt meter installed at the tube-well of PW3 Dharam Singh and not as a bribe. The suggestion given by the defence to PW3 Dharam Singh that Rs.600/- was meant for replacing the burnt meter was specifically denied by him. Same was the testimony of PW7 Prem Singh. However, both of them have unequivocally testified that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.600/- as bribe for replacing the burnt transformer and on such a demand being made, PW3 Dharam Singh handed over the amount to him.
The defence has tried to point out certain discrepancies in the testimony of various prosecution witnesses in respect of recovery of the tainted money from the appellant. According to PW3 Dharam Singh, the appellant was holding the currency notes in his right hand when the same were taken into possession by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, whereas, according to PW6 R.B. Langyan, SDM, the currency notes were recovered from the right pocket of the pant worn by the appellant. Further, according to PW3 Dharam Singh, the solution regarding demonstration wash was transferred in one nip but when cross-examined it was stated that the same was collected in two different nips. The aforementioned discrepancies pointed out by the defence do not go to the root of the case. Such like discrepancies are bound to appear in the testimonies of truthfulness witnesses, more so, when the witnesses are examined after a long time of the occurrence.
Next attack of the defence is regarding the validity of the sanction order Ex.PJ on the ground that the sanctioning authority had not Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -7- applied its mind while passing the order Ex.PJ. However, on perusal of the testimony of PW5, Baru Ram, who stood posted as Administrative Officer in the office of Chief Engineer, HSEB, Operation, Hisar, he had seen the sanction order Ex.PJ passed by the Chief Engineer granting permission to prosecute the appellant. He identified the signatures of the Chief Engineer as he had seen him signing and writing. In cross- examination, no suggestion was put to him that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind. Only one question was put by the defence and in reply thereto PW5 Baru Ram deposed that the police had placed the papers before the Chief Engineer for according sanction to prosecute the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that the appellant has already lost his job on account of his conviction in the present case. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 15 years. In the year 2006, he was diagnosed as suffering from left Fronto temporo-parietal chronic Sub-dural Hematoma as he had started complaining of repeated vertigo and suffering falls the last one month. Headache and heaviheadness was present for two weeks. He complained of nervousness and poor memory. He consulted Dr. P. Gutpa at Jind, who put him on medication but it was of no relief to him. He then developed loss of speech and weakness of right side of body, irritability and inability to recognise relatives. He became progressive drowsy and developed bladder and bowel incontinence. CT Scan Head was done which revealed large Sub-dural Hematoma left Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -8- Fronto Temporo-parietal region. He was admitted in Sarvodaya Multi- speciality Hospital, Hisar on 27.12.2006, where he remained hospitalized for more than 10 days. Discharge summary issued by aforementioned hospital has been produced which is taken on record. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting aside the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the appellant.
The State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for reduction of his sentence of imprisonment on the ground that the appellant had demanded Rs.600/- as illegal gratification from PW3 Dharam Singh for repairing the burnt transformer which amount was, thereafter, collected by him from Dharam Singh. The sentence awarded to the appellant is commensurate with the crime committed by him. Therefore, no indulgence be shown to him in the matter of sentence.
In Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2121, where a police Inspector was alleged to have accepted bribe, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment of one year RI to that already undergone by him on the ground that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1979 and all those years, the accused had been undergoing the agony of criminal proceedings. Moreover, he had lost his job and had a large family to support. The relevant observation is as follows:-
"Now coming to the question of sentence, it is a Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -9- very old case and the occurrence itself is said to have taken place in the year 1979. All these years the accused has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings. He has lost his job and we are told that he has a large family to support. In similar circumstances, in B.C. Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration (1974) 3 SCC 85 : (AIR 1973 SC 1457), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone. From the records, it appears that the appellant was in jail for some time. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
The sentence of fine with default clause is however, maintained. Subject to the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed." In B.C. Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1973 SCC 1457, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. While one does not deter, the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. After upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and noticing that though the said offence prescribed minimum sentence of RI for one year besides the fine, the sentence of imprisonment could be for a lesser period but in that event the Court had to assign special reasons, which must be recorded in writing. Finally after observing that sending the accused back to jail after seven years of the agony and harassment of the Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -10- proceedings when he was also going to lose his job and had to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine. The said conclusion is as follows:-
"As already observed, the appellant's conviction under S. 161, IPC, was rightly upheld by the High Court and there is no cogent ground made out for our interference with that conviction. The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the High Court for both these offences is one year and this sentence is to run concurrently. The only question which arises is that under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for one year and there must also be imposition of fine. The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realize that he has committed an act Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -11- which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence. It is also designed to reform the offender and re-claim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question.
In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal.
In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to Jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."
Crl. Appeal 806-SB of 1996 -12- In view of the above, ends of justice would be amply met if the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant for two offences are reduced to that already undergone by him.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is maintained. His sentence of imprisonment on both the counts is reduced to that already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon the appellant on each of the two counts is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of the same, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
But for the modification in the sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.
( T.P.S.MANN )
March 30, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1