SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Surjit Singh, Senior Clerk in the Treasury Office, Kapurthala, against the order dated December 17, 1984 of the Special Judge, Kapurthala whereby he was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. He was further convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that Smt. Sudesh Kumari (PW 8) had been awarded a compensation of Rs. 55650/ - because of the death of her husband in a vehicular accident. In execution of the compensation order a voucher was issued in her favour by the Court. Smt. Sudesh Kumari had engaged the services of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate (PW 10) in the execution proceedings. Shri Ashok Kumar took the voucher to the Treasury office on March 19, 1984 and gave the same to the appellant to get it passed for payment. The appellant asked Shri Ashok Kumar to come on the following day. When Shri Ashok Kumar met him on March 20, 1984, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 50/ - from him to deliver the voucher. Shri Ashok Kumar had no intention to pay the bribe. Therefore. after putting off the appellant by saying that he would come later, be went to the Vigilance Inspector Shri Ved Parkash Chopra (PW 13) who recorded his statement on the basis of which a First Information Report was lodged against the appellant. The Vigilance Inspector organised a raiding party in which he associated Arjan Singh (PW 11) who was deputed to act as a shadow witness Currency note of Rs. 50 duly treated with phenopathalein powder was handed over to Sh. Ashok Kumar to be offered as bribe to the appellant. Thereafter Shri Ashok Kumar (PW 10) and Arjan Singh (PW 11) went to the Treasury Office and met the appellant. The aforesaid currency note of Rs. 50/ - was handed over by Sh. Ashok Kumar in the presence of Arjan Singh (PW 11) to the appellant as bribe which the latter put in his pocket of the trousers. Or the agreed signal given by the shadow witness, the Vigilance Inspector (PW 13) rushed to the spot and recovered the incriminating currency notes from the personal search of the appellant. After the completion of investigation the appellant was challaned and prosecuted with the aforesaid result.

(3.) THE story regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant and the acceptance of the same is supported only by the complainant Shri Ashok Kumar (PW 10). The recovery of the incriminating currency note is deposed to by the complainant and the Vigilance Inspector and also by Avtar Singh (PW 12) who was joined at the spot at the time of recovery. The shadow witness Arjan Singh (PW 11) failed to support the prosecution case. He admitted that he was deputed to act as a shadow witness but deposed that neither the appellant demanded any bribe from the complainant nor the bribe money was paid in his presence. He was got declared as hostile witness by the prosecution and he was allowed to be cross -examined by the prosecution but nothing was elicited in his cross -examination in support of the prosecution story. The prosecution in order to succeed had to prove that the appellant had demanded bribe money from the complainant and thereafter had accepted the same. According to the prosecution story the complainant was alone when the appellant had demanded the bribe money from him for the first time on March 20, 1980. Second time the complainant and the shadow witness to the appellant later on the same day. At that stage also the demand of bribe and its acceptance is. supported only by the complainant and not by the shadow witness. The latter denied that the appellant had either demanded or accepted any bribe from the complainant. Thus there is only the sole testimony of the complainant to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant and its acceptance The recovery from the appellant of the incriminating currency note is, no doubt, supported by an independent witness, namely, Avtar Singh (PW 12) but the recovery alone is no guarantee to the demand and acceptance of bribe. The complainant is naturally interested in the success of the trap, therefore, his testimony without independent,corroboration is of no value to prove the prosecution story. It was held by the Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration. 1974 C.L.R. 611, that trap witnesses in a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being concerned in success of the trap the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting the accused.