AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exhibiting the deep concern with regard to the corruption in public life, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Billa Nagul Sharief v. State of A.P., 2010 11 SCC 575, has noticed the feeling of a common man that when the work is enshrined to different persons bribe is demanded by one of them, when all are invariably in collusion, cannot be lost sight of. If Senior Officers ensure that the works of the citizens are done without payment of bribe, Junior Officers and employee may abandon the demand and this country would not have prominently figured as one of the most corrupt nations of the World, as it is widely accepted that the corruption flows from the top. The enactments of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the P.C.Act) and The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 are the appropriate steps in the right direction to eradicate the corrupt practice by certain categories of public servants and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. India is passing through a very crucial phase of corruption. Perhaps, time has now come to take effective steps to control it, but, in the present case, the Vigilance Department of State of Punjab prima facie does not appear to be very serious in this relevant connection.

(2.) Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, petitioner Amarjit Singh son of Surain Singh, was employed and working as a Patwari at the relevant time in the area of Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur, in relation to the affairs of the revenue department of State of Punjab. He demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- as bribe from complainant Raj Kumar son of Ajit Singh (for brevity the complainant ) as illegal gratification, for sanctioning the mutation in question. Dissatisfied with the conduct of the Patwari, the complainant informed the Vigilance Department. A raiding party was prepared. Having followed the established procedure, a raid was conducted on 2.2.2005. In pursuance of the raid, the petitioner was caught red handed, while accepting the illegal gratification of the indicated amount from the complainant and bribe money of Rs.2000/- was recovered at the spot. All the requisite formalities were completed and evidence was collected at the spot by the police of Vigilance Department. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by means of FIR No.9 dated 2.2.2005, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act by the police of Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur.

(3.) Although the petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the illegal gratification and amount of bribe money of Rs.2000/- was recovered at the spot, but subsequently, the Vigilance Bureau just ignored the entire evidence with impunity and submitted the cancellation reports (Annexures P4 & P6) in a very casual manner. As soon as, the complainant came to know, in the meantime, he opposed the cancellation reports on the ground that Amarjit Singh, Patwari (petitioner) has accepted the bribe money from him in the presence of shadow witness Hardev Singh. He handed over the money, which was duly recovered from his agent Gulzar Singh at the spot. Thus, the petitioner has committed the pointed offences. In this manner, the complainant prayed for rejection of the cancellation reports.