KANWAR PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these matters arise out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the two accused-appellants. Both these accused were prosecuted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 161 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that both these accused demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/- in order to complete the pension papers of complainant Tarlok Chand and give him the cheque of the amount. Complainant Tarlok Chand claims that on 18.2.1986 he had been to the office of the Defence Pension Disbursement Office, Gurdaspur. There he happened to meet accused Kanwarpal Singh who then demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for clearing the pension papers of Tarlok Chand and for giving the cheque of the amount due. After negotiation, the amount of illegal gratification was settled at Rs. 300/-. Thereupon the complainant approached the Vigilance Department on 19.2.1986. There his complaint was duly recorded. Thereupon in the presence of witnesses, currency notes of Rs. 300/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder after following the due procedure and precautions. That amount was handed over to complainant Tarlok Chand with the direction that he shall give the amount to the accused, on demand by him. Witness Roop Chand was to accompany the complainant Tarlok Chand, and he was to witness the events and give the signal after the amount was accepted by the accused. The raiding party then came near the office of the accused. Tarlok Chand and witness Roop Chand arrived in the office. On seeing them, accused Kanwarpal Singh is said to have enquired from Tarlok Chand as to whether he has brought the amount of Rs. 300/-. On getting the affirmative reply, the accused Kanwarpal Singh assured that the work of Tarlok Chand would be done. Thereafter both these accused and the complainant and the witness proceeded towards the nearby railway crossing. Thereupon accused Kanwarpal Singh directed Tirlok Chand to pay the amount to accused Bhisham Raj. The amount was accordingly paid to accused Bhisham Raj. He put that amount wrapped in a handkerchief. Thereupon raiding party got the signal. The accused were duly apprehended. The tainted amount was recovered from accused Bhisham Raj. After further investigation charge-sheet against the accused was submitted.

(2.) ON the completion of investigation, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution case in toto. Accused Kanwarpal Singh claimed that complainant Tarlok Chand never approached him in connection with the pension papers because he was not dealing with those papers. According to him, one Prem Kumar Bhatia was dealing with the case of Tarlok Chand and accused Kanwarpal Singh was not at all concerned with that file. He further claimed that on 18.2.1986 he along with other officials had been to town Kahnaur to disburse pension to the military personnel, and was thus out of office from 8.30 A.M. till 6.00 P.M. He further claims that he was on leave from 19.2.1986. He claimed that on 19.2.1986 he had gone to the Railway Station for cancellation of certain tickets booked for Meerut which is his home town.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge was of the view that the acceptance of the tainted money is potent with the demand for it, and it does by necessary implication prove the demand for illegal gratification. He was of the view that since the tainted money was found with the accused, it is sufficient to raise irresistible inference that the amount had been given because it was demanded, as no person would accept money from a stranger. As regards the claim of the accused that they were on leave on 19.2.1986, he was of the view that the muster roll showing the accused on leave, must have been in all probabilities created to help the accused. Regarding the claim that the accused was not dealing with the file of the complainant, the learned Special Judge was of the view that it is not necessary to show that the work to be done was in discharge of the official duties.