JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 9 dated 11.03.2004 was registered against the appellant by the Vigilance Bureau, Patiala under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of an information received from the reliable sources that Jaswant Singh -appellant posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle, Dhammo Majra, Patiala had constructed a double storey palatial house No. 22 in Gursharan colony, near Village Sular and had spent lacs of rupees in the construction and this money, it was alleged, was out of the assets accumulated by the appellant disproportionate to his known source of income. The check period was, therefore , fixed as 1.4.1923 to 31.12.1998 to ascertain the factual position. Calculating the income and expenditure of the appellant-accused for this period, it was found that the income of the appellant during this period was Rs. 9,53,021.63/- and that he had spent Rs. 10,69,004/- during this period. He had, therefore, spent Rs. 1,15,982.37/- in excess of his income. As the appellant had incurred expenses beyond his known source of income curing the check period while being a public servant by way of misuse of his office, the above mentioned FIR was thus registered against him.

(2.) DURING investigation, details of salary, purchase and sale of plots, copies of registered sale deed, copies of jamabandi of the land belonging to the appellant, report regarding the income from the Agricultural Department, Patiala during the relevant period, particulars regarding the salary of wife of the appellant, namely, Smt. Jaspal Kaur, who was working as a Teacher in Green-well Academy High School Raghomajra, Patiala, was obtained. Apart from this, details regarding the loan statement pertaining to the house loan taken from Punjab National Bank, Branch Sanaur, were also obtained and on statements of the witnesses having been recorded, it was found that during the check period i.e. 01.04.1993 to 31.12.1998, the appellant received salary to the tune of Rs. 2,43,275/- and Rs. 11,822/- as dearness allowance, Rs. 1 lac was received by him as house building loan, Rs. 1,11,000/- (being owner of share as income from land plot sold vide sale deed dated 04.10.1995), Rs. 28,3331/- on account of 1/3rd share received after selling joint house vide sale deed No. 1688 dated 12.5.1997, Rs. 44,625/- being salary of the wife of the accused Smt. Jaspal Kaur. As regards landed property, which was primarily agricultural in nature, it was found that the family of the accused owned 97 bighas 18 biswas of landed property. Out of this landed property, the appellant-Jaswant Singh was owner of 24 bighas 9 biswas of land, his other brother, namely, Pavittar Singh, who was younger brother of the accused, also owned 24 bighas 9 biswas of land and the father of the accused, namely, Sadhu Singh owned 48 bighas 19 biswas of land. Out of this share of 48 bighas 19 biswas. Sadhu Singh had given 16 bighas to each of his two sons, namely, Jaswant Singh and Pavittar Singh for cultivation and the remaining land with the father Sadhu Singh was 16 bighas 19 biswas. The appellant was thus found to be cultivating 40 bighas 9 biswas of land. As per the calculations made by the Statistical Assistant of the Agricultural Department, the appellant had received Rs. 4,44,560/- as agricultural income during the check period. Thus, taking into consideration all sources of income, the total income of the accused during the check period was found to be Rs. 9,83,615/- whereas the appellant had spent an amount of Rs. 11,06,733/- He, therefore, had spent Rs. 1,23,118/- in excess of his known source of income by way of accumulating the money by way of corrupt means by misuse of his office of Patwari. Having come to this conclusion, the Vigilance Bureau challaned the application under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the Court has erred on facts as also on the law while convicting the appellant. In the first place, he submits that the Investigating Agency had failed to take into consideration the fact that his father Sadhu Singh was residing with the appellant and was in cultivating possession of 16 bighas 19 biswas of land. The income from that source was being contributed by him in the income of the appellant. 1/3rd of the rental income, which his father was getting from five shops constructed at Bus-Stand, Dadkala, was also being contributed by him in running the household, which again should have been added to the income of the appellant. That apart, he contends that the appellant-Jaswant Singh was also entitled to 1/3rd of the rental income from the shops, which has also not been included in the income of the appellant. During this check period, it has come of the appellant. During this check period, it has come on record in the statement of his father Sadhu DW-6 that there were two ancestral houses in Village Dadkala, out of which, house constituted in the Abadi of the village was given by Sadhu Singh father of the appellant, to his younger son Pavittar Singh whereas the other house which was outside was sold by Sadhu Singh and his two sons in favour of Sham Lal and Santosh Rai of village Dadkala vide registered sale deed dated 12.5.1997 for an amount of Rs. 85,000/- and the whole sale consideration 85,000/- was given to Jaswant Singh-appellant. This complete amount of Rs. 85.000/- should, therefore, have been added to the income of the appellant whereas only 1/3rd of this amount i.e. Rs. 28,333/- has been added in the income of the appellant. That apart, he contends that his mother-in-law, namely Harkesh Kaur DW-4 has categorically stated before the trial Court that she had sold a plot in April, 1996 vide registered sale deed for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Ex. D.W.O.4/A) and another plot in December, 1996 (Ex. D.W.4/B) for another amount of Rs. 25,000/- and this amount of Rs. 50,000/- which she received as sale consideration of the above mentioned two plots, was given by her daughter Jaspal Kaur, who is wife of the appellant for construction of house. This amount of Rs. 50,000/- also should have been included in the income of the appellant. His wife Jaspal Kaur was working as a Teacher and apart from the salary which she was receiving from the school, she was also giving extra tuitions to the students after school hours and the extra income, which is generated by charging tuitions fee from the students, has also not been included in the income of the appellant. Jaspal Kaur has appeared as DW -3 before the trial Court and made this positive assertion before the trial Court. This assertion has been supported by Rajinder Singh DW-2, who had deposed that earlier his two daughters, namely. Henna and Santa were taking extra tuitions from Jaspal Kaur, wife of the appellant and for this, he was paying extra tuition fee to her and now his son was taking tuition from her.