JAGDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagdev Singh appellant has by way of this appeal challenged his conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 12th March, 1983. The appellant 5tands sentenced to 1V2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further six months rigorous imprisonment, under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) In the month of May, 1982, the appellant was posted as a Revenue Patwari in Haiqa Do Burji and the village of Sukhdev Singh complainant P.W. 1 fell within his jurisdiction. Harnam Singh grandfather of Sukhdev Singh P.W. owned about 190 bighas of land in village Gidhari. Out of those 190 bighas of land he had gifted 30 big has to Amar Singh father of Sukhdev Singh complainant. Amar Singh had mortgaged about one:Killa of land in favour of Gurdip Singh son of Bachan Singh of village Gill for about Rs. 30,500, To redeem that land Sukhdev Singh and his father wanted to raise a loan from the land mortgage bank. For that purpose a copy of the Jamabandi of the land in question was needed. Sukhdev Singh P.W. went to the appellant (or the purpose. The appellant demanded Rs. 200 for supplying the aforesaid copy. Since Sukhdev Singh did not have any money at that moment he promised to pay him the money on the following day. Sukhdev Singh instead went to Vigilance Inspector Satbir Singh at Ludhiana and narrated the facts to him. Inspector Satbir Singh summoned Gian Chand P.W. 4, an employee of the Excise Department, and in his presence recorded the statement of Sukhdev Singh which is Exhibit PA. On the basis of the same formal first information report Exhibit PA/2 was recorded at Police Station, Payal, district Ludhiana, on 20th May, 1982, at 3.25 p.m. Sukhdev Singh P.W. produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100 each before the Inspector. They are Exhibits P1 and P2. The Inspector after treating the currency notes with phenolphthalein and nothing down their numbers gave the same back to Sukhdev Singh complainant for being passed on to the appellant as illegal gratification. Gian Chand P.W. was directed to act as a shadow witness. Both these witnesses, namely, Sukdev Singh and Gian Chand proceeded towards the patwarkhana of the appellant followed by the raid party headed by Inspector Satbir Singh P.W.6. On a demand having been made by the appellant Sukhdev Singh passed on currency notes Exhibits P1 and P2 to the appellant who put the same into the pocket of his trousers. After that the appellant started preparing a copy of the jamabandi. In the meantime, on a signal having been given by Gian Chand P.W. the police party accompanied by Harbans Singh P.W. 5 reached there and after disclosing his identity and observing due formalities Inspector Satbir Singh recovered currency notes Exhibits P1 and P2 from the pocket of the appellant. The appellant was made to wash his hands in a solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the same turned pink. The same was put into a bottle. The pocket of the trousers of the appellant was also washed in a similar solution. The colour of the same also turned pink. That was also converted into a separate bottle. Jamabandi copy Exhibit P6 was produced by Sukhdev Singh P.W. and it was taken into possession by the Vigilance Inspector. Some record of the office of the appellant was also taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PH, Sukhdev Singh P.W. also produced a photostat of mortgage-deed and another copy of jamabandi Exhibits P7 and P8. The appellant was arrested and, after obtaining due sanction, was tried.

(3.) When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and came out with the following version: I am innocent. I had made a note on the mutation relating to an exchange between father of Sukhdev Singh and Kirpal Singh that the land of Sukhdev Singhs father was under mortgage. Exhibit DA is the copy of the aforesaid mutation. Before that mutation note became known to Sukhdev Singh he obtained the copy of the jamabandt from me. After he came to know about the note on the jamabandi he quarrelled with me. Sukhdev Singh has relations in Vigilance Department. On account of his grievance and in collusion with relations I was taken to the police station and falsely implicated in this case. I had not made the girdawari entry relating to the land of Harbans Singh P.W, which has been purchased by him from, Kartar Singh. I had made an entry in the daily diary to that effect. The matter was reported to the Tehsildar on 6.4.19.82. On receipt of the order from the Naib Tehsildar dated 28.4.1982 the girdawari was entered in favour of Harbans Singh. My report and the order of the Naib Tehsildar are mention. ed in the daily diary which. were taken into possession by the police at S. No. 262 and 307. Harbans Singh was feeling aggrieved against me on that account. Excise Department is under the influence of the police and the police had obliged them by challaning contractors and his servant in a false case. In fact, Sukhdev Singh alone came to me when Mohinder Singh was sitting by my side and asked for the copy of the jamabandi. My pant was hanging on a peg nearby. Stealthily Sukhdev Singh put the money in the pocket of the pant. When I put on the pant while going for lunch at about 2 p.m. after preparing the copy of the jamabandi the police came and recovered the money from my pocket. I was immediately taken to the police station. Harbans Singh and Gian Chand P.Ws. were not present and all the writing was done in the Police station. TI In defence he examined Atma Singh Special Kanungo who stated that he could not say that the daily diary entries at serial Nos. 262 and 307, the copies of which are marked A and B, were in the hand of the appellant. The appellant also tendered copy of judgment Exhibit DB into evidence.