Criminal Appeal No.1439-SB of 2006 v. State of Punjab

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, with Mr.,Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate. Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate. Mr.M.S. Sidhu, Advocate. Mr.K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate. Mr.Gaurav Sharma,Advocate. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid five appeals as they arise out of the same First Information Report. -3- Criminal Appeal No.1439-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1473-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1484-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1514-SB of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.1550-SB of 2006. Appellants Surinder Kumar Beri, Gurbachan Lal Chawla Mohinder Pal Chopra, Sardul Singh and Jaswinder Kaur, who were/ are employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short `the Board') and were posted at Ferozepur City, were convicted and sentenced under Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 468 read with Section 120-B, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 25.7.2006. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offences was rigorous imprisonment for two years besides fine. Hence these appeals by the appellants. This case was registered against the appellants when Ramandeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range, came to know from some reliable source that appellants Surinder Kumar Beri, Gurbachan Lal Chawla Mohinder Pal Chopra, Sardul Singh and Jaswinder Kaur, who were employees of the Board, posted at Ferozepur City, by conspiring with each other and by forging the record, had changed/transferred/renewed various electric tube-well connections. According to the information received by the said Deputy Superintendent of Police, this was done by the appellants by changing the record and by forging the names of various -4- Criminal Appeal No.1439-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1473-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1484-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1514-SB of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.1550-SB of 2006. persons. The appellants had allegedly done so by adopting corrupt or illegal means and by using their official position as public servants. All the accused-appellants were arrested in this case. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution of the accused from the competent authority, challan against the accused-appellants was presented in the Court. The accused-appellants were charged for the aforesaid offences. They did not plead guilty to the charge sheet and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. Darshan Singh, Junior Meter Reader-cum-Record Keeper and Krishan Dayal were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2, respectively. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The instant is a case which had been registered against appellants Surinder Kumar Beri, Gurbachan Lal Chawla Mohinder Pal Chopra, Sardul Singh and Jaswinder Kaur, employees of the Board posted at Ferozepur City, when Ramandeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range, -5- Criminal Appeal No.1439-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1473-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1484-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1514-SB of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.1550-SB of 2006. received some information that the appellants had conspired with each other and by using their official positions as public servants and by forging the record, had changed/transferred/renewed various electric tube-well connections. Allegedly, this was done by the appellants for monetary benefits. No one complained to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range, that he / she had paid bribe to appellants Surinder Kumar Beri, Gurbachan Lal Chawla Mohinder Pal Chopra, Sardul Singh and Jaswinder Kaur for getting some favour from them. There is no evidence on record that any of the appellants had received any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by doing illegal act as a public servant. After perusing the evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to connect the appellants with the offences for which they have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. In the inquiry report dated 2.9.1996 (Exhibit D.3), which was given after conducting the inquiry by Varinder Singh, Inspector, the appellants were declared innocent. By this report, the appellants were exonerated by the Vigilance Branch of the Board. As mentioned above, no bribe money was passed in the instant case. To the maximum, it could be said to be a case of departmental lapse and no case was made out for criminal liability of the accused. For the departmental lapse even, the appellants had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, as noticed above. The various -6- Criminal Appeal No.1439-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1473-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1484-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1514-SB of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.1550-SB of 2006. entries on which reliance was placed by the prosecution were jumbled and did not concretely prove criminal liability of the accused. In fact, the evidence produced on record shows that this case was based on circumstantial evidence which cannot lead to conviction of the accused for such offences which need documentary evidence, that too leading towards no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence on the record as to who had made the entries in the register, which according to the prosecution, were forged. None of the prosecution witnesses mentioned anything with regard to the said entries. The prosecution did not produce on record any charge list or duty register or any other document to show as to who was the incharge of the record. Since no one had complained to Ramandeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur Range that appellants Surinder Kumar Beri, Gurbachan Lal Chawla Mohinder Pal Chopra, Sardul Singh and Jaswinder Kaur were indulging in changing the record of the Board for monetary gains by conspiring with each other and he had initiated this case when he allegedly came to know from some reliable source about it, he (Deputy Superintendent of Police) was expected to collect concrete evidence in the case. It appears that the prosecution was influenced by the fact that as the appellants were posted at the same office of the Board for a particular period together, they were in conspiracy with each other. The inquiry report dated -7- Criminal Appeal No.1439-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1473-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1484-SB of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.1514-SB of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.1550-SB of 2006.

2.9.1996 (Exhibit D.3) whereby all the appellants were exonerated by the Vigilance Branch of the Board, was ignored by the learned trial Judge by holding that the inquiry conducted by the Department had no value. When a public servant is exonerated in departmental inquiry, concerning the same set of allegations which form basis for criminal trial, the evidence led by the prosecution has to be examined with a great care and caution. Needless to say, standard of proof in a Criminal Court of law is “beyond reasonable doubt”. The learned trial Judge, in the impugned judgment, took note of the fact that the present is a case based on circumstantial evidence and documentary evidence. However, no document was specific enough pin-pointing the guilt of the appellants, leaving aside the conspiracy factor apart. For the aforesaid reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts. Consequently, these appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them the benefit of doubt. February 23, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE