HARBANS SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal by Harbans Singh. He has been convicted under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 161. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case are as under: The appellant was Patwari of village Ghagga, Chand Singh resident of that village orally applied to the appellant for supply of certified copy of khasra girdawari of his agricultural land as he wanted to file in Court a suit for declaration. The appellant demanded Rs. 200 as bribe for the copy applied for being supplied to Chand Singh. The amount was negotiated down to Rs. 100. On September 23, 1967, Chand Singh contacted Jatinder Singh Kalha, Public Grievances Officer at Patiala and told him about the demand from him by the appellant of bribe of Rs. 100 in connection with the supply of a certified copy to him. As arranged, Chand Singh met again Jatinder Singh Kalha on September 24, 1967 at Police Station Ghagga. His statement Exhibit P.A, to the above effect was recorded. Chand Singh gave currency note of Rs. 100, Exhibit P. 1 to Jatinder Singh Kalha. He signed that currency note and returned it to Chand Singh, Memo, pertaining to the delivery to Chand Singh of the signed currency note of Rs. 100 along with its other particulars is exhibit P.B. As a result of the trap devised, Chand Singh was to hand over that currency note, Exhibit P, 1 to the appellant while Jatinder Singh Kalha, Sardul Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Harnek Singh were to keep themselves concealed at some distance and on signal being given by Chand Singh, the party waiting for the signal would arrive at the spot of passing of the bribe and effect recovery. Chand Singh accordingly passed currency note, Exhibit P. 1 to the appellant while he was sitting in a room in his house. On indication being given by Chand Singh that the money had passed to the appellant, the other members of the party waiting at a distance of 40 karams from the house of the appellant arrived there. The currency note was recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the appellant Memo pertaining to its recovery is Exhibit P.C.

(3.) IN the face of admission made by the appellant in his statement under Section 342. Code of Criminal Procedure supported by the evidence of Jai Singh and Jagrup Singh D. Ws., it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of the prosecution in so far as the passing of the currency note Rs. 100 to the appellant is concerned. The only question, which survives for consideration, is whether that amount passed by way of illegal gratification or it passed in discharge of the liability, which Jai Singh incurred by borrowing Rs. 100 from the appellant. In order to prove the purpose of bribe, for which the currency note of Rs. 100. Exhibit P 1 is said to have passed to the appellant, the prosecution have relied on the solitary statement of Chand Singh. No corroboration whatsoever of his statement is forthcoming to show that the amount had passed as bribe. One of the witnesses, who joined the trap party, is Harnek Singh. He stated that he stood outside the house of the appellant away from it and had concealed himself along with other members to the party waiting for the signal. There is no reason why Harnek Singh should not have been made to act as a shadow witness and deputed to stand close to Chand Singh at the time the currency note, Exhibit P. 1 passed to the appellant to enable him not only to see that the currency note had passed from Chand Singh to the appellant but also to enable him to hear the purpose for which the amount was being paid by Chand Singh to the appellant. It is stated by Chand Singh that he continued requesting the appellant for supply of a certified copy of khasra gardawari for a period of one month prior to the date, on which the trap was made to work and that the appellant did not care to supply that copy to him. This must have led to the estrangement and all will between the two. Chand Singh is in the position of a decoy witness and an accomplice. He was interested against the appellant and must have striven to see that the trap was successfully through. His testimony did require corroboration of independent character. No corroboration at all much less corroboration of an independent witness, especially when one in Harnek Singh could be available, is forthcoming.