JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 28-4-1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 1969 confirming the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced by the Special Judge to undergo two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rupees 500/-. But the High Court has reduced the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment; the fine levied by the Special Judge has, however, been maintained.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was briefly as follows : One Kaku Singh, P. W. 1, was allotted surplus land belonging to one Hazura Singh situated in the village of Dhakrabba Two other persons Jagan Nath and Amar Nath, had also been allotted surplus land of the same owner along with P.W. 1. Those persons had authorised P.W. 1 to take possession of their land also on their behalf. The effort made by Kaku Singh to take possession of the land was not successful. The appellant was the Naib Tehsildar (Agrarian) Patiala, at the relevant time. Kaku Singh approached the patwari in this connection for helping him to get possession of the lands. He was assured that possession will be delivered on April 15, 1968. But as the revenue Patwari was not available on the day, Kaku Singh could not get possession, though he had gone to the spot along with Police help. On the morning in April 30, 1968, P. W. 1 contacted the appellant at the latter's residence and requested him to assist him in getting possession of the property. The appellant made a demand of Rupess 100/- as illegal gratification for rendering such assistance P. W. 1 agreed to give the bribe later in the day. P.W. 1 later contacted P. W. 11, the Inspector of Police, and informed him about the demand of the appellant P. W. 11 took him to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W. 10 who took a statement from him. P. W. 10 took the ten-rupee currency notes of the total value of Rs. 100/- given by P. W. 1 and after noting the numbers returned the same to P. W. 1 asking him to give the amount to the appellant and give a signal to the Police party, who will be waiting near about the place P. W. 1 accordingly contacted the appellant near the Court house and both of them got into a rickshaw. While proceeding in the rickshaw, P. W. 1 gave the accused the sum of rupees one hundred and gave the pre-arranged signal. On this the Police party headed by P. W. 10 arrived in a jeep and stopped the rickshaw. On seeing the Police party, the appellant threw the notes from his pocket on the foot-board of the rickshaw which were seized. The accused also was arrested and a statement taken from him by the Police.

(3.) The appellant was prosecuted for the offence mentioned earlier. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P. W. 1, the complainant, P. W. 2 who has signed the seizure memo regarding the currency notes, P. W. 3, the rickshaw-puller, P. W. 10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who organised the trap and P. Ws. 9 and 11, two Police officers, who were in the Police party at the time of the raid. The plea of the appellant was one of complete denial. He further added that as there was a stay order passed on April 30, 1968 by the appellate authority, and as P. W. 1 could not get possession in consequence, he was embittered and hence had foisted this false case of payment of bribe.