RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave, is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(1) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant was tried by the special Judge, Amritsar and for each of the two offences he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. This conviction of the appellant was maintained by the High Court in appeal, but the sentence of substantive imprisonment for each of the two offences was reduced from one and half years to one year. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is:whether, on the evidence on record, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are justified, or they require to be set aside

(2.) The appellant was, at the material time a Passenger and Goods Tax Clerk II in the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar. There was also another Passenger and Goods Tax Clerk I in the office, at that time and his name was Har Mohan Singh. One Jagdish Raj along with his brothers jointly owned a truck bearing No. PNA 4228 which stood in his name. Since the truck was old and needed extensive repairs, Jagdish Raj stopped plying it for hire and it remained idle in the workshop of Ajit Singh in the village Bhikhiwind since lst July, 1965. The certificate of registration of the truck was deposited by Jagdish Raj with the Licensing Officer, Amritsar since he was not plying the truck. It appears that by an order dated 12th May, 1967 exemption had already been granted to Jagdish Raj from payment of goods tax in respect of the truck for the period of seven quarters from lst July, 1965 to list March, 1967. But the goods tax for the subsequent quarters from lst April, 1967 remained to be paid by Jagdish Raj. One Brar, who was the Excise and Taxation Inspector at the relevant time insisted on payment of these arrears of goods tax, but on the request of Jagdish Raj, granted him one and a half months time to produce a certificate from the Licensing Officer, Amritsar certifying that the truck had not been plied and that the certificate of registration remained deposited with the Licensing Officer during the quarters from lst April, 1967. The case of the prosecution was that this time was granted by Brar on receipt of illegal gratification to the tune of about Rs 20/-. However, some twenty days thereafter, Brar came to Bhikhiwind and impounded the truck for non-payment of arrears of goods tax and handed it over at the police station for safe custody. On learning about this event, Jagdish Raj once again contacted Brar and on further demand being made by him, Jagdish Raj paid for the benefit of Brar a sum of Rs. 10/- to the keeper of the hotel where Brar had stayed. Jagdish Raj entreated Brar to release the truck but the latter was adamant and insisted that he would not release the truck until the exemption certificate from the Licensing Officer, Amritsar was produced and ultimately told Jagdish Raj that he should contact the appellant on 29th July, 1968 as he would be on leave on that day. Jagdish Raj accordingly contacted the appellant in his office on 29 th July, 1968 when the appellant confronted him with the demand of a bribe of Rupees 400/- for Brar and Rs. 50/- for himself if Jagdish Raj wanted his work in connection with the release of the truck to be carried out expeditiously. Jagdish Raj entreated the appellant that he was not in a position to pay the large amount demanded by the appellant, but the latter remained firm and refused to reduce the amount of the bribe. On the next day, that is 30th July, 1968, Jagdish Raj again contacted the appellant and repeated his request for reduction in the amount of the bribe but the appellant declined to accept a lesser amount.

(3.) Jagdish Raj then decided to go to the Office of the Special Inquiry Agency in Amritsar for the purpose of entrapping the appellant. On his way to the office of the Special Inquiry Agency, he met Arjun Das, who was well known to him and was going on a cycle to see his sister. He persuaded Arjun Das to accompany him and both of them proceeded to the office of the Special Inquiry Agency and met Inspector Hardas Singh there. Jagdish Raj disclosed all the facts to Inspector Hardas Singh and his statement was duly recorded by Sub-Inspector Baldev Singh on the dictation of Inspector Hardas Singh and it was subsequently dispatched for the registration of the case. Jagdish Raj then produced five currency notes of the denomination of rupees ten each which were duly taken into possession after having been initialled and their serial numbers having been noted in the relevant memo and were then returned to him. The necessary instructions were thereafter given to Jagdish Raj and Arjun Das. The memo was signed by Jagdish Raj, Arjun Das and one other witness named Mohan Lal. The raiding party then proceeded to the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer at about 1.30 p.m. after picking up one more witness named Makhan on the way. When they reached the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Jagdish Raj and Arjun Das went to the first floor where the appellant used to sit while the rest of the members of the raiding party waited below in the compound. Jagdish Raj and Arjun Das met the appellant in the room where he was sitting and the appellant told Jagdish Raj that he was waiting for him to come as it was otherwise time for him to go home. Jagdish Raj told the appellant that he would himself settle the amount with Brar, but so far as the appellant was concerned, he had brought the sum of Rs. 50/- demanded by the appellant and he handed over the five marked currency notes to the appellant in the presence of Arjun Das. The appellant received the five marked currency notes and put them in his right hand pocket of his trousers and thereafter he proceeded down stairs followed by Jagdish Raj and Arjun Das as the office time was over. As soon as he came within the sight of the raiding party which was waiting in the compound, Jagdish Raj gave the agreed signal. Thereupon the appellant was apprehended by Inspector Hardas Singh in the verandah of the ground floor. The appellant was searched and the five marked currency notes were recovered from the right hand pocket of his trousers and these were taken possession of by Inspector Hardas Singh under a memo. Whilst the search was in progress, Gurdev Singh, Excise and Taxation Officer also arrived there and Inspector Hardas Singh requested him to attest the memo of recovery of the five marked currency notes, but Gurdev Singh declined to do so and observed that whosoever has committed the sin would suffer the consequences. Inspector Hardas Singh thereafter carried out the investigation and after the investigation was complete, he filed a charge-sheet against the appellant charging him for offences under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5 (1) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant was, as pointed out above, convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge and his conviction was confirmed in appeal by the High Court, though the substantive sentence of imprisonment was slightly reduced. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence in this appeal brought by him with special leave.