HAKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal by Hakam Singh impugning judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.1995 of learned Special Judge, Bathinda, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short - 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution, are as under :- Suit of one Lachhman Dass for recovery of Rs. 12,200/- was decreed against Bhan Singh-complainant vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.1991 of learned Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda, along with interest from the date of suit till realisation. In execution petition, warrant of attachment (Ex.P-F) of tractor trolley of complainant Bhan Singh was issued and was entrusted to appellant Hakam Singh, who was then posted as Bailiff under Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda. On 04.03.1992, the appellant went to complainant's village for effecting attachment in execution of the warrant of attachment. The complainant pleaded to the appellant that he had to file appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court and sought assistance from the appellant against attachment. The appellant told him that he would not show presence of the complainant and would manage to get some other date by making report to enable the complainant to file appeal in the meanwhile. The appellant asked the complainant to meet him on 05.03.1992 at 10:00 A.M. outside the Court Complex, Bathinda near Red Cross Dhaba and assured to extend benefit to the complainant. The appellant also warned the complainant that if he would not come accordingly, the appellant still had time to execute the warrant and would accordingly effect attachment by visiting the complainant's village again and thereby complainant's reputation would be lowered in the village and he would also face hardship in filing appeal. Accordingly, the complainant met the appellant at the aforestated date, time and place. The appellant demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant so as to make favourable report saying that the warrant was still with him. The matter was ultimately settled for Rs. 300/- as bribe. The complainant sought time of three hours to arrange the money. The appellant then went to Vigilance Bureau and made statement to Inspector Harbans Singh narrating the aforesaid facts and also presented three currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each. Naib Singh, Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, was joined as shadow witness. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant and the shadow witness. The currency notes were treated with Phenol Phthalein Powder. Demonstration was also given to the complainant. The notes were handed over to the complainant with necessary instructions. Requisite memo mentioning numbers of the currency notes also was prepared. The complainant accordingly went to the appellant and on his demand, gave him the tainted currency notes worth Rs. 300/-. Naib Singh - shadow witness gave pre-arranged signal to the police party. Thereupon, police party apprehended the appellant. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side pocket of his pants. Numbers of the said currency notes tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the above mentioned memo. Hand-wash and pocket-wash of the appellant in solution of sodium carbonate separately turned the solution pink. Both the solutions were sealed in separate nips and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory from where report Ex.P-L was received that sodium carbonate and phenol phthalein were found in the solutions. At the spot, necessary investigation formalities were conducted by Inspector Harbans Singh, who prepared rough site plan Ex.P-M of the place of occurrence and recorded statements of witnesses. During investigation, photostat copy of service book of the appellant was collected and so also warrant of attachment and copy of movement register of the appellant. Orders relating to promotion and posting of the appellant as Bailiff (Ex.P-R and Ex.P-S) passed by Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda were also collected. Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda also passed Sanction Order Ex.P-N granting sanction under Section 19 of the Act for prosecution of the appellant for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the concerned court for prosecution of the appellant for the said offences.

(3.) TO prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Naib Singh (PW- 1), shadow witness and Bhan Singh - complainant (PW-6) and Investigating Officer Inspector Harbans Singh (PW-7) have broadly stated according to the prosecution version narrated herein above. Makhan Singh - Chowkidar (PW-2) stated that the appellant had visited the village of the complainant and inquired about the complainant. The witness accompanied the appellant to the house of the complainant, who was not found present there, but complainant's son was present. The appellant made report Ex.P-E on the warrant. The report was also signed by Makhan Singh - Chowkidar. Rajinder Pal, Civil Nazar (PW-3) stated that the attachment warrant (Ex.P-F) was initially assigned to Mohinder Singh - Bailiff vide entry no. 563, photocopy Ex.P-G for execution, but thereafter the appellant came back on expiry of leave period and the warrant was marked to the appellant in the same entry. The warrant was returned on 05.03.1992 along with report Ex.P-E on its back. Photostat copy of entry Ex.P-G was seized by the police vide memo Ex.P-H. Balbir Singh (PW-4) was posted in Civil Nazar branch. He stated that warrant of attachment Ex.P-F was marked to Mohinder Singh - Process Server. Kewal Krishan (PW-5) - Additional Ahlmad stated that he had issued the attachment warrant Ex.P-F on 22.01.1992. Head Constable Harcharan Singh (PW-8), Constable Gurdev Singh (PW-9) and Constable Raghbir Singh (PW-10) tendered their respective affidavits Ex.PW- 8/A, Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW- 10/A in evidence. Orders Ex.P-R and Ex.P-S of promotion and posting of the appellant as Bailiff and Report Ex.P-L of Forensic Science Laboratory were also tendered in evidence.