BHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On January 19, 1970 the appellant who at the appellant who at the material time was posted as Sectional Officer at Dhaipai Section of Ferozepur Division of Sirhind Canal, Incharge of Roman Minor Distributory, was convicted by the special Judge, Faridkot, under Sec. 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced on the first charge to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months, and on the second count to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. His appeal to the High Court having failed, the accused has accused has preferred the present appeal by special leave challenging the order of conviction.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows:The fields of village Mattused to be irrigated from Romana minor distributary. On may 13, 1969 at 7.15 P. M. Ajaib Singh (P. W. 5) had has turn of water from the distributary which was to continue for five hours. According to Ajaib Singh, at about 8.30 P. M. the flow of water stopped. Next morning at 8.15 A. M. the water again started flowing and Ajaib Singh resumed irrigating his fields. A few minutes later the appellant came to Ajaib Singh and informed him that the outlet had been damaged and told him to name the person responsible for the breach or he would report him (Ajaib Singh) to the police, adding that in case Ajaib Singh paid him Rs. 1500/- no action would be taken. Ajaib Singh denied that he had damaged the outlet but as the appellant seemed firm on making a report against him, he agreed to pay. The appellant then left the place. Ajaib Singh after taking his turn of water till 1.15 P. M. went back to his house and had a talk with Nand Singh (P. W. 10) of his village. Nand Singh did not suggest any thing to help him but told him to do whatever he thought best. Next day Ajaib Singh again saw Nand Singh and asked for his advice; Nand Singh then advised him to report the matter to the Vigilance Inspector at Bhatinda. This was on May 15, 1969. On May 16, Ajaib Singh saw the appellant at Dhaipai Rest House and "settled the bargain at Rupees 1000/-." The appellant asked Ajaib Singh to be present with money on the canal bridge at about 7 P. M. the same day. Ajaib Singh came back, collected Rs. 1000/- from his house, went to village Sarawan where he saw Buta Singh (P. W. 8), told him all about the demand made by the appellant and asked Buta Singh to accompany him to Bhatinda to lodge a report with the Vigilance Inspector. They met Vigilance Inspector Shiv Narain (P. W. 12) at his office at about 4.30 P. M. when Ajaib Singh made a statement narrating the entire story. Inspector Shiv Narain initialled four of ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each which Ajaib Singh was carrying with him. Thereafter Ajaib Singh, Buta Singh, Inspector Shiv Narain, Sub-Inspectors Gurchetan Singh and Parmanand by a jeep which Shiv Narain hired at Bhatinda toward the canal bridge. They went via village Sarawan where the constable was made to get down and one Amar Singh (P. W. 9) joined the raiding party. The jeep was stopped at a distance of about one furlong from the bridge. It was then about 7 P. M. Ajaib Singh and Buta Singh got down, went up to the canal bridge and waited for the appellant who arrived there on a cycle after about half an hour. They walked together for a short distance before Ajaib Singh handed over the ten currency notes that he had brought with him to the appellant which the appellant put in the left pocket of his trousers. It was then that Inspector Shiv Narain along with the two Sub- Inspectors appeared at the spot and on seeing them the appellant put his hand in his left trouser pocket and tried to bring out the money. Inspector Shiv Narain caught hold of the appellant's left hand clutching the currency notes. The appellant was then put under arrest and a recovery memo of the things in his possession was prepared by Sub-Inspector Parmanand on the dictation of Inspector Shiv Narain.

(3.) The accused examined several witnesses in his defence including himself. The defence version appears from his own testimony as D. W. 3 and also from his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. According to the appellant the case against him was false and inspired by Inspector Shiv Narain who bore a grudge against him as the appellant had declined his request for providing one Inspector Harbans Singh with illegal supply of canal water when the appellant was posted as Overseer, Canal Bhatinda Section. A few days after the appellant took charge at Dhaipai, two persons, Ranjit Singh and Karam Singh, came to see him with a request to allow them extra water from the canal which was illegal. The appellant turned down this request. On May 16, 1969 Buta Singh and Ajaib Singh met him at Dhaipai Rest House at about 7.15 P. M. and told him that the outlet supplying three villages had been damaged and wanted him to go and inspect the spot. He asked Buta Singh and Ajaib Singh to go back promising that he would follow a little later. After about twenty-five minutes the appellant started for the spot on a cycle and reaching there found a number of people waiting. Three or four from that group suddenly started a quarrel with him and in the scuffle the appellant's shirt was torn. Inspector Shiv Narain gave him two or three slaps and on his order a constable handcuffed the appellant.