AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Special Judge, Ludhiana by his judgment dated April 30, 1986 in Corruption Case No. 24 of 30.10.1984.

(2.) THE appellant was prosecuted for the offence under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code,

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the record clearly shows that the appellant has accounted for all the tins of palm oil which were issued by him to various depots during his tenure at P.D.C. Gill Chowk, Ludhiana and that the appellant brought it to the notice of the authorities that there was leakage in the tins and to stop the same, some arrangement had to be made but the authorities did not take any action in regard thereto and the shortage of palm oil in this case occurred during transit and also during storage of the tins in the godown. It is on the other hand contended by the learned State counsel that there were shortage of 3843 tins of palm oil and therefore, the learned Special Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and there is no reason for interfering with the same. There is no dispute that the accused worked as Sub-Inspector incharge Public Distribution Centre, Gill Chowk, Ludhiana, for the period 1.1.1983 to 31.7.1983. There is also no dispute that at the time when he took over charge of the stock there were 23,776 palm oil tins but according to him, he received only 62,472 tins of palm oil from 1.1.1983 to 31.7.1983 and not 66315 tins as claimed by the prosecution. Thus the accused has accounted for all the tins of palm oil. It is to be seen whether the accused accounted for all the tins that had been received. According to prosecution, there are shortage of 3843 tins of palm oil. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner accounted for all the tins he received and the shortage of palm oil was due to leakage which fact was brought to the notice of the authorities by the appellant. Even on 7.12.1982, the Inspector of PUNSUP Ludhiana has written in his letter that the tins were lying in open on ground and there was danger of spoiling these tins in rains and that the condition of the tins was also not good and there was also possibility that the tins would be affected by rust and due to all this, PUNSUP would suffer financial loss. This letter was marked as Ext. D.G. The appellant also wrote a letter to the District Manager, PUNSUP Ludhiana on 8.2.1983 wherein he brought to the notice of the District Manager that eleven trucks of palm oil were lying stored in the open plinth and there were no trays below these tins and due to change of season the palm oil had started leaking because of heat and the same could be inspected at the spot and there was every possibility of shortage from the tins due to leakage and PUNSUP could suffer huge loss. In the absence of trays, the other tins stored in the covered godowns also stated leaking due to hot season. On this letter, the Field Officer has written that due to change of season heat the palm oil has started leaking from the tins. Accordingly, he recommended that immediate arrangement should be made for the disposal of the stocks of palm oil as there was every possibility of shortage due to leakage because of the fact of non-availability of sufficient trays at the P.D. Centre. Again on 7.4.1983, the District Manager had written to the Manager Commercial & Distribution, PUNSUP Chandigarh to bring to his notice about the leakage due to huge storage of palm oil and it was not possible because such huge quantity of palm oil could not be stored in tin-trays and the leaked quantity cannot be disposed of in loose because no consumer or depot holder would be willing to take the leaking tins. It was also brought to the notice of the Manager Commercial & Distribution that the tin-trays were also not available. The Field Officer on 28.4.1983 also brought to the notice of the District Manager about the leakage of the tins. Thus from Exts. D.G, D.R. & D.A. it can be seen that there was leakage of palm oil from the tins and therefore, the head office was requested to take immediate steps to prevent the leakage of palm oil from the tins so that there was no loss of any quantity in the tins for which the appellant cannot be held responsible. It is to be seen whether the accused has accounted for all the tins which he had received. Though it is the case of the prosecution that 66315 tins were received by the appellant during the period 1.1.1983 to 31.7.1983 but there is no evidence to that effect. PW. 1 was examined to prove sanction Ex. PA for the prosecution of the accused. PW. 2 worked as District Manager at Punsup, Ludhiana. According to him, the opening balance as on 1.1.1983 of palm oil tins was 23776 and closing balance was 1189. He further stated that on 31.5.1983, the balance of palm oil was 8160, is correct. According to him, the balance on 30.7.1983 was 1189 and the evidence of PW.2 also shows that all the tins were received by the accused during the period from 1.1.1983 to 31.7.1983. PW.3 deposed that in the monthly statement of July, 1983 the balance shown is 2511 but it should have been 3672 tins and as such according to him, 1161 tins of palm oil were shown short. The monthly statement supplied by the accused are marked PG to PH for the period from 1.1.1983 to 31.7.1983 and those were signed by the accused. He did not specifically state that how many tins were supplied to the accused during that period. PW.4 produced the original record of appointment of the accused and the posting of the accused. His evidence is not of much relevance to decide the matter in issue. PW. 5 stated that Ext. P.1 is summary of palm oil for the period from 1.1.1983 to 31.7,1983. PW.6 is the Shop Assistant. According to him, he took delivery of 66315 tins of Palm oil from 1.1.1983 to 31.7.1983. Ex. PW 6/A to Ex. PW 6/L are the delivery receipts. He admitted that one tin weighs 15-1/2 Kgs. and that the goods were delivered to the accused in good condition. P.W. 7 took charge from the accused. According to him, 1269 tins of palm oil were there in all out of which 12 tins were empty. 1257 tins were weighed and there was shortage of 54 Qtls and 23 Kgs. of palm oil in those tins. According to him the standard tin of palm oil is 15.5 Kg. including the weight of tin Ex P.5 is the memo to the effect of taking charge. PW 8 deposed that there were 1269 tins of palm oil in all out of which 12 tins were empty. 1257 tins were weighed in his presence and their weight came to 15503 kg. 500 grams and a shortage of 54 Qtl. 23 Kgs. of palm oil was found. He also deposed that the weight of a palm oil tin was 15 Kg. 500 grams, including the weight of the tin. PW.9 is a Constable who was posted in P.S. Division No. 6, Ludhiana from 5.8.1983 to 11.8.1983. PW. 10 is the Accountant PUNSUP He deposed that one tin of palm oil contained 15-1/2 kg. and the price was Rs. 155.78. PW 11 is the Inspector Vigilance who investigated the case.