RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Frank Anthony arguing the case for the accused, in this appeal by special leave, has put forward four main contentions against the appellant's conviction, namely, (a) that the prosecution is invalid for want of competent sanction; (b) that the investigation is not merely illegal but has in consequence inflicted serious prejudice on the accused; (c) that the non-examination of key witnesses, like the Deputy Superintendent of Police, should have driven the Court to draw an adverse inference fatal to the case, and the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices or quasi-accomplices should not have been the foundation for a conviction, and (d) that the Court had drawn a presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, although there was no warrant for it in the present case, the charge having been one under Section 5(1)(d), read with Section 5(2) of the said Act.

(2.) A brief statement of the facts will lead to a better appreciation of the arguments urged. The accused (appellant) was an Assistant Station Master at Atoli in May 1967. P. W. 3, a member of the armed Forces, was going back home by train from Udaipur with his wife and child on railway concession pass, carrying with him a trunk and bedding. When the train reached Atoli Railway station in the afternoon of May 9, 1967, P. W. 3 got down with his baggage and when he handed over his ticket to the accused, was told that he had to pay extra for his wife and child and excess luggage - a sum amount Rs. 45/- or more. P. W. 3 pleaded that he had no money on him then and was suggested a way out by the payment of Rs. 10/- at once a bribe and a bargain. Promising to bring the money the next day, P. W. 3 left the station leaving his bedding as something of a non-human 'hostage' which was to be released on the payment of the illicit sum. On reaching his village late in the night, P. W. 3, the Jawan, thought of informing the authorities about this harassment. Accordingly, he contacted the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, on May 11, and related to him what had happened. The Deputy Commissioner instructed the Superintendent to Police to look into the matter who directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, to take suitable action. He also sent a telephonic message to Shri Dharamvir, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narnaul, and told him that Sis Ram had been directed to contact the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, in connection with his complaint. Thereupon, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, P. W. 5, together with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, decided to organise a trap, on being apprised of the story by P. W. 3. The team consisted of the Deputy Superintendent, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a head constable of the railway police, and P. W. 3 himself. The party moved to the railway station and P. W. 4, Lakshmi Narain, also joined them on the way. A ten-rupee note (EX. P1) was handed over by P. W. 3 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who signed on it, in token whereof a memo was prepared, Ex. PF. P. W. 3 took back the note, his body was searched as part of the usual precaution and he was directed to go to the accused and give signal after the money was paid. As arranged, P. W. 3 met the accused, made over the money, gave a signal whereupon the party of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate closed in on the accused. The marked note was recovered from his right hand (vide memo Ex. PC). Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate lodged a First Information Report with the police, a case was registered and on completion of investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction over the Railways, P. W. 7, and after obtaining the statutory sanction, Ex. PD/1, the accused was charged with an offence of having accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 10/- on May 11, 1967 from P. W. 3 thereby committing criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties, punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The Special Judge convicted the accused, overruling the defence version set up under Section 342, Cr. P. C. and disbelieving the defence witnesses. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- was also confirmed.

(3.) Shri Frank Anthony sought to make good his contention regarding the invalidity of the sanction, Ex. PD/1, by urging that page No. W. 2 Divisional Officer (Senior Scale), who granted the sanction did not and, under the rules, could not appoint or dismiss the accused. It has to be mentioned right at the beginning that page No. W. 2, who was working as Divisional Operating Superintendent, Western Railway, Udaipur, has sworn that by virtue of delegated powers he was competent to remove an Assistant Station Master like the accused. Although his evidence was a little ambiguous in that he first swore that he was competent to remove but not to dismiss the accused, on a later date he was recalled, and gave evidence bringing with him the relevant rules and regulations. He testified that under the rules he was competent to dismiss a Class III servant drawing a pay rising up to Rs. 250/-. The accused came within this category. The High Court, not content with mere oral evidence on this issue, went elaborately into the legality of the sanction and found that the Indian Railway Establishment Code (Rule 134) authorised delegation of powers, and in the schedule there is a clear delegation of the powers in favour of Divisional Officers (Senior Scale) to make initial appointments to posts in scales of pay rising up to Rs. 380/- per month, P. W. 2 is a Divisional Officer, Senior Scale, and the accused holds a post in a scale of pay not exceeding Rs. 380/- per month. The Court, therefore, concluded that the powers to appoint, which also carried with it the power to dismiss, vested in P. W. 2.