KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kuldip Singh appellant was convicted under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, Amritsar and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The allegation against the appellant was that on 11th May, 1978, while being posted as Road Inspector in the P.W.D. B & R he was found in possession of a house worth Rs. 15,000/- in the name of his wife Balbir Kaur. H was constructed over plot No. 13, Vijay Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar and he allegedly acquired the same disproportionate to his known sources of income.

(3.) The matter sprung up when Vigilance Inspector Harbhajan Singh on receipt of secret information lodged first information report on 11th May, 1978, at Police Station, Sadar Amritsar not on the allegation afore referred to. At that time, the house was statedly under construction. The specific allegation was that the appellant was taking construction material belonging to the Government for his own house. The part of the allegation the prosecution in a separate trial could not prove but the appellant was doubted on his property statement which the Vigilance Inspector with the permission of the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) obtained. The property statement filed in by the appellant mentioned that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been spent by him in the year 1974-75 for- the construction of the house of his wife, and the money had been raised by her by arranging Rs. 9000/- by selling 1125 grams of gold and the remaining amount had been received by her by way of Shagan (customary presents). However, the appellant could not furnish any documentary proof with regard to the sale of gold through a registered dealer. The house, however, was not assessed from Jawahar Lal Jam, S.D.O. Construction Division who assessed the value of the same at Rs. 15,000/-. This gave rise to the launching of prosecution against the appellant. At the trial, the prosecution led evidence of various shades. Balkar Singh (P.W. 1) broadly stated about the circumstances in which the property statement of the appellant had been secured, that is, Exhibit P. 1 with Annexures P.1/A, P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.S signed by the appellant at the behest of the Vigilance Department. Shri V. K. Jam (P.W. 2), Executive Engineer got the house in question valued from Jawahar Lal Jam, S.D.O. Its estimated value was Rs. 15168 and its rounded figure was Rs. 15,000/-. Jawahar Lal Jam, S.D.O. (P.W. 6) introduced in evidence his report Exhibit P. F/I with regard to the valuation of the house. Since the appellant was himself an Inspector in the Buildings and Roads Branch of the P.W.D. the attention of the witness was invited in cross-examination about the value and use of the appellant's skill. The witness had to say that the employees of the public Works Department, B & R Construction by virtue of their qualification can supervise a construction in a better manner as compared to a lay man, but of course it depended on the experience gathered by the employee. According to this witness, the house had been constructed in 1974 and he had made the assessment in the year 1979. He put the house in two parts i.e., A and B. In Part the stated that there was no electrification. With regard to the electricity fitting charges, he corrected his report and said that instead of Rs. 8178/- it should have been Rs. 454/- and those were mathematically wrong. With regard to portion A of the house, which was built in 1974, he put the construction rate at Rs. 20/- per square feet and with regard to portion B, which was constructed in 1978-79, he put the rate of construction at Rs. 28/- per square feet. He made these assessments in accordance with the specifications prescribed in the department to feed their schedules and the assessment made by him included supervision charges which could be 2 to 3 per cent. He had to admit in cross-examination that he had a house in Basant Avenue, Amritsar, about which he was enquired about his resources of income as compared to the value of the said house by the Vigilance Staff. From this, it was sought to be urged that since the Vigilance Department had set up a case of the appellants using Government material surreptitiously at the site which allegation could not be proved, Jawahar Lal Jam, S.D.O., who himself was under a cloud with the Vigilance Department was alternatively made to inflate the value of the house. This will be seen in the context of the defence adopted and led by the appellant.