Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001 v. State (Central Bureau of Investigation), Punjab

Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate, Kapurthala (P.W.3), Mr.R.K. Anand, Advocate (D.W.4) and Dr. A.K. Singla, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert ( D.W.5). I have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State of Punjab and Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and have gone through the records of the case. Complainant Arvinderpal Singh, who intended to get installed a new telephone connection in his residence,had completed the due formalities of depositing Rs.10,000/- in the main post office, Kapurthala, vide receipt No.789 dated 6.3.1998. He had met the appellant a number of times for doing the needful. The appellant, at the relevant time, was posted as J.T.O, Telephone Exchange, Kapurthala. However, the appellant kept on postponing the matter. On 9.7.1998, the complainant met the appellant again. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for installing telephone at the residence of the complainant. After negotiations, -7- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. the matter was settled at Rs.300/-. The complainant did not want to pay illegal gratification to the accused. So, accompanied by Prabh Dayal Singh, who had advised the complainant to get the corrupt employee like the appellant nabbed from the Vigilance Department, went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Kapurthala and narrated the entire story to him. The complainant handed over three currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A raid was accordingly organized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaipal Singh, which included officials of the Vigilance Department, complainant Arvinderpal Singh, Tribhuwan Kumar, Sub Divisional Clerk and Prabh Dayal Singh, who was to act as a shadow witness. The complainant and the shadow witness, as was directed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, went to meet the accused. The Deputy Superintendent of Police in the company of other members of the trap party kept on waiting for the signal of the shadow witness. When, after some time, shadow witness Prabh Dayal gave the appointed signal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police raided the office of the accused. At that time, the accused-appellant was found sitting on a chair in his office. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, after disclosing his identity to the accused, asked him to keep his hands raising. Thereafter, the appellant was made to wash his hands in the water mixed with sodium carbonate and colour of the solution turned pink. The wash pertaining to -8- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. the appellant was sealed in the form of parcel. The three tainted currency notes were recovered from the diary which was lying on the table of the accused. The fact that after receiving the bribe money, the appellant had kept the same in the diary, was disclosed by the complainant to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The numbers of the currency notes were found tallying with the currency notes, the numbers of which had earlier been noted down. The currency notes along with the diary were taken into possession by the police. The prosecution witnesses, mentioned above, namely Arvrinderpal Singh complainant (P.W.1), shadow witness Prabh Dayal Singh (P.W.2) Tribhuwan Kumar (P.W.3), an official witness who had witnessed the recovery, have supported each other on all material particulars. The accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe. The appellant had a motive to accept the bribe as the complainant wanted to get installed a new telephone at his residence through the appellant. The main defence of the appellant is that the area where the residence of the complainant is situated was not within his jurisdiction and, therefore, he had no motive to accept bribe from the complainant. Without going into any detail on this issue raised by the appellant, suffice to say that Tarsem Lal Sidhu (P.W.7), who was Sub Divisional Officer (Telephones), Kapurthala, at the relevant time, categorically deposed that the accused-appellant was the overall incharge for the installation of new telephone -9- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. connections at that time. This statement of the official witness, namely, Tarsem Lal Sidhu (P.W.7), Sub Divisional Officer (Telephones), Kapurthala, completely negatives the defence taken by the accused-appellant. There was no enmity of the complainant with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in such a case. There was also no reason for the official witnesses to depose falsely against the appellant. The act and conduct of the appellant had forced the complainant to approach the Vigilance Department. The case of the prosecution against the accused- appellant stands proved from the cogent and convincing evidence led by the prosecution. The accused-appellant did not dispute his posting at Kapurthala. The sanction granted by the competent authority for the prosecution of the accused, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning be said to have been issued without proper application of mind. Under these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant had not only the opportunity but also the motive to demand and accept the bribe. No straight jacket formula can be laid as to how and in what circumstances the demand is proved. The mind of the person demanding bribe cannot be peeped into. The prosecution is to prove its case by leading positive evidence, which has been done by it in the instant case, as discussed above. The evidence led by the prosecution proves in certain terms that the appellant had demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant, patently for showing favour to him in the matter of installation of new -10- Criminal Appeal No.41-SB of 2001. telephone connection at his (complainants) residence. In view of the above, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence relates to March, 1998 and the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the head of the appellant for more than twelve years, some leniency is required to be shown in the matter of sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years awarded to appellant on each count under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. The sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court on the appellant for the aforesaid offences and the default clause shall, however, remain unaltered. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The impugned sentence order is modified accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. April 06, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE