Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003 v. State of Punjab

(complainant) that he should pay the first instalment, i.e a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the Police Station on 18.12.2000 and the second instalment of Rs.30,000/- thereafter. Tirath Singh (appellant) also told Sukhdev Singh that on 18.12.2000 at about 4 to 5 P.M, he should come to Nehru Juice Bar on the G.T. Road near Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, after arranging the money and he (appellant) would meet him there. Since Sukhdev Singh did not want to pay the illegal gratification to Tirath Singh, he made a false promise with him and came back. On 18.12.2000, Sukhdev Singh (complainant) withdrew the amount from his bank account and along with Sukhdev Singh son of Harjit Singh of Village Bhanoki, came to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar, where Smt. Gurpreet Deo, Superintendent of Police met -4- Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003. him. The statement (Exhibit P.A) of the complainant was recorded and on its basis the instant case was registered.

A raid was accordingly organized to nab the appellant. The members of the raiding party included complainant Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh son of Harjit Singh, , who was to act as a shadow witness, Superintendent of Police Smt. Gurpreet Deo and other police officials. The complainant had produced 40 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each totalling Rs.20,000/- to Smt. Gurpreet Deo, Superintendent of Police. Their numbers were noted down. Phenolphthalein powder had been applied to these currency notes and these were handed over to the complainant by instructing him to hand over the same to the accused on his demand. Complainant Sukhdev Singh and the shadow witness Sukhdev Singh son of Harjit Singh went to the appointed place to wait for the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant arrived there after a short while. On getting the signal from the shadow witness, Smt. Gurpreet Deo along with remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot and immediately apprehended the accused.

The appellant was caught hold of from both his wrists. The appellant was made to wash his hands in the water mixed with sodium carbonate and colour of the solution turned pink. On conducting search of the appellant, the tainted currency notes of Rs.20,000/- were recovered from the left side pocket of the pant worn by him. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the currency notes, the numbers of which -5- Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003. had earlier been noted down. The wash pertaining to the appellant was sealed in the form of parcel and taken into possession by the police. The currency notes were also taken into possession. After completion of investigation challan against the accused-appellant was presented in the Court. Charge under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses.

Sukhdev Singh (P.W.1) is the complainant, Shashi Kant (P.W.2), Senior Assistant, District Treasury Office, Jalandhar and Surinder Kant (P.W.3), Treasury Officer, Jalandhar, are the witnesses to the recovery, Sukhdev Singh son of Harjit Singh (P.W.4) is the shadow witness, Amrik Singh, Superintendent of Police (P.W.5), prepared the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ram Murti (P.W.6), who produced the wrist watch and bracelet before Smt. Gurpreet Deo, however, turned hostile, Onkar Singh, Head Constable (P.W.7) brought the service record of the accused and proved the same, Smt. Gurpreet Deo, Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur (P.W.8) was the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar, at the relevant time and the Investigating Officer in the instant case, Sucha Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Reader to Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala (P.W.9) proved the sanction Exhibit P.W.9/A accorded by Shri Iqbal Singh, the then Senior Superintendent of -6- Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003.

Police, Kapurthala, for launching prosecution against accused, Assistant Sub Inspector Manjit Singh, Incharge, Information Centre, CPRC, Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala (P.W.10) was posted as OASI in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala from January 2001 to January 2002 and proved that vide order Book No.782/2000,he (accused)was posted in Anti Gunda Staff, Phagwara with effect from 22.7.2000, Varinder Kumar Constable (P.W.11) proved his affidavit Exhibit P.W.11/A and Balwinder Singh Constable (P.W.12) proved his affidavit Exhibit P.W.12/A. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication at the instance of Jasbir Singh Randhawa, Sub Inspector, who was also one of the members of the raiding party. He further stated that he was innocent and had nothing to do with the alleged offence.

In defence, the appellant examined Baldev Dutt, Head Constable (D.W.1), Harmel Singh (D.W.2), Panch of Village Bhanoki, Navjinder Singh (D.W.3), Gulzar Singh (D.W.4), Malkiat Singh (D.W.5) and Balbir Singh (D.W.6). Baldev Dutt (D.W.1) had brought the Rozenamcha dated 18.12.2000 of Police Station Sadar, Phagwara and proved Exhibit D.1, a copy containing entries of the same. Harmel Singh (D.W.2) deposed that he never went to the Police to get Sukhdev Singh (appellant) released. Navjinder Singh (D.W.3) deposed that there was no Juice Bar by the name of Nehru Juice Bar near Police Station Sadar, Phagwara. Gulzar Singh (D.W.4) deposed with regard to some compromise. He -7- Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003. stated that the niece of Jasbir Singh, Sub Inspector, was married to the nephew of the accused and there was some family dispute. He further stated that when talk with regard to the compromise was going on, there was heated exchange between the accused and Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh.

Malkiat Singh (D.W.5) also deposed in that manner. Balbir Singh (D.W.6) stated that Jasbir Singh, Sub Inspector, was his nephew and his daughter had a dispute with her in-laws. He further stated that they took the Panchayat and went to the house of appellant Tirath Singh. He further stated that there was heated exchange between Tirath Singh and Jasbir Singh, Sub Inspector and no compromise was arrived at. I have heard Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate, and Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab and have gone through the records of the case. At the outset, it may be stated that the defence of appellant Tirath Singh that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Jasbir Singh Randhawa, Sub Inspector, who was also one of the members of the raiding party is not tenable. Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh was not present in the raiding party at the time of apprehension of the accused, his search and recovery.

As stated above Gulzar Singh (D.W.4) has deposed about some compromise by stating that the niece of Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh was married to the nephew of the accused and there was some family dispute and that when talk with regard to the compromise was going on, there were heated exchanges between -8- Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003. the accused and Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh. Malkiat Singh (D.W.5) also deposed in the same terms. Balbir Singh (D.W.6) stated that Jasbir Singh, Sub Inspector, was his nephew and his daughter had a dispute with her in-laws. He further stated that they took the Panchayat and went to the house of appellant Tirath Sing and that there were heated exchanges between Tirath Singh and Jasbir Singh, Sub Inspector, and no compromise was arrived at. The evidence led by the accused-appellant in his defence does not reveal that he had been falsely implicated in this case.

Even if there was some family dispute between the niece of Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh who was married to the nephew of Tirath Singh (appellant) and a talk regarding compromise had taken place which did not materialize, it cannot lead to a conclusion that a false case could be planted on the accused at the instance of Sub Inspector Jasbir Singh. The investigation in this case was carried out by a very senior I.P.S officer, namely, Smt. Gurpreet Deo, Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur (P.W.8), who at the relevant time, was the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar. It is not expected from such a Senior Police Officer that she would involve an official of the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector falsely in a corruption case at the instance of another junior police officer. The evidence led by the accused in defence is an afterthought and no reliance can be placed thereon.

Sukhdev Singh (complainant), while deposing in Court as P.W.1,stated about the version given by him in his statement -9- Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003. (Exhibit P.A) before the police on the basis of which the instant case was registered against the accused. Shashi Kant (P.W.2), Senior Assistant, District Treasury Office, Jalandhar and Surinder Kanta (P.W.3), Treasury Officer, Jalandhar, are the witnesses to the recovery of the tainted money from the left pocket of the pants worn by the accused. Shashi Kant (P.W.2) and Surinder Kanta (P.W.3), being official witnesses, had no reason whatsoever to depose falsely against the accused. Sukhdev Singh son of Harjit Singh (P.W.4), who is the shadow witness, also supported the case of the prosecution. Smt. Gurpreet Deo, Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur (P.W.8), Investigating Officer of the case gave details of the investigation. She had no malice towards the accused so as to implicate him in such a case.

Sukhdev Singh complainant (P.W.1), Shashi Kant (P.W.2), Surinder Kanta (P.W.3) and Smt. Gurpreet Deo (P.W.8) were subjected to a searching cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before the trial Court, but nothing could be elicited therefrom which could help the accused. No doubt, Ram Murti (P.W.6), who had produced the wrist watch and bracelet before Smt. Gurpreet Deo, turned hostile, but it hardly affects the merits of the case. A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is not dependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesses who appeared to -10- Criminal Appeal No.1644-SB of 2003. have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case.

No discrepancy worth the name could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, mentioned above. The prosecution witnesses have furnished a true and trustworthy account of the whole events in this case. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, clearly establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, who was a public servant, from the complainant. Consequently, the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge is upheld. In view of the above, conviction of the appellant under under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) of the Act, as recorded by the learned trial Judge, is upheld. Insofar sentence awarded to the appellant for the said offences i.e maximum rigorous imprisonment for six years besides fine as both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently, the appellant has already undergone actual sentence of more than two years and three months.