PARMJATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried and convicted by Shri M.S. Lobana, Special Judge, Patiala, for offence under section 5(1)(c) read with subsection 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment thereof to farther undergo six months, rigorous imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal.

(2.) IN brief. the facts of the prosecution case are that the accused was working as Sectional Officer Irrigation under Amrik Singh (P.W.2) in the Remodelling Sub Division, Patiala and entrusted with the modelling work of, bridges and falls etc along the Ghaggar Branch Canal from R.D. No. 134265 to R.D. N. 135000 in the area of village Sular. On 4th February, 1981, the accused submitted an indent Ex. PB for supply of 205 bags of cement from the Sunam Store manned by Shri R.C. Sharma. Sectional Officer. He obtained the cement after the indent was approved by Shri Amrik Singh. Sub Divisional Officer. The accused signed the report Ex PB/l, receipt in token of the delivery of these bags of cement for taking to the site of work at Sular. It is noteworthy that Sular falls at a distance of 12/13 Kms by direct road and is 18 Kms by Chowk Mehlan road while Patiala is it a distance of 65 Kms. both from Sunam and Sular. These bage were entrusted to Inder Singh (P.W. 11) to be carried in his truck No PUP 4571 to Patiala instead of Sular vide goods receipt Ex PK/1 bv the accused. On the night intervening 4th/5th February, 1981. Inspector Vigilance, Patiala, Shri Didar Singh (P.W. 14) received secret information about these bags having been brought by the accused to his house under construction at Patiala. Taking this information to be credible, he sent Ruqa Ex. PH to Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala at 6.15 A M. for registration of a case under Section 5 of the Act, on the basis of which formal first information report Ex. PH/l was recorded by Baldev Singh (P W 4) This Inspector then associated Vigilance Inspector, besides other police officials Baladev Singh (P.W. 1) and. Ram Sarup were joined from the locality where the house of accused was situated and this party then recovered 205 bags of cement from the house search of the accused. These bags were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA which was arrested by the said P.Ws. The rough site-plan, Ex. PR of the spot was also prepared besides the recording of the statements of the said witnesses The goods receipt book Ex P.I. containing the carbon copy of goods receipt Ex. PR/2 and the indent book were also taken into possession during the investigation. After the collection of all the relevant evidence. sanction Ex. PQ was obtained from the Superintending Engineer and the accused was put to trial on the said allegation by submitting the charge sheet before the Special Judge, Patiala.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Inderpal Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, besides perusing the record. The testimony of Baldev Singh (P.W.1), Inspector Santokh Singh (P.W.12) and Inspector Didar Singh (P.W. 14), clearly establishes the recovery of 205 bags of cement from the house of the accused at Patiala, which was still under construction. The testimony of Surat Singh (P.W. 10) a building contractor of that house also shows that due to the non-availability of cement, the construction work was stopped after about 5 or 6 months. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant about Baldev Singh (P.W.1) being inimical towards the accused, due to damaging of Chari crop while laying the foundations of his house as admitted by Sprat Singh (P.W. 10) and alleged by the accused. Baldev Singh (P.W. 1) frankly conceded that he had sown Jawar crop in the land on which the wife of the accused had started the construction of the house but explained that he had harvested the crop before the digging of the foundation. It appears that Surat Singh (P.W. 10) had a soft corner for the accused. and that is why be had not supported his earlier version contained in the statement before the police. He was allowed to be cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and confronted with his earlier version. Obviously, be being working as a contractor of this house under the accused, he must be under his influence. and, thus, his admission in this regard is of no consequence, especially when, it is not the case of the accused that Baldev Singh resorted to any criminal or civil action against him regarding the damage to his crop. Baldev Singh, P.W. is a resident of that very locality where the place of recovery is located and so is Ram Sarup witness, who was given up by the prosecution as having been won over. No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining Ram Sarup as a witness,, as his evidence was not essential to unfold the prosecution case. Thus the findings of the Supreme court in Bir Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 S.C. 59 in this regard are of no help to the appellant. Moreover, Inspector Santokh Singh, Inspector Didar Singh and Baldev Singh have no motive to falsely implicate the accused.