Charan Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Appellant had faced the trial in FIR No. 152 dated 14.12.1995 u/s 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''Act'' for short) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

PW-3 Manju Rana, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) deposed that on 6.11.1995, she was posted as Sub Judge, Ist Class, Kapurthala. At about 1.00 P.M., she called civil suit titled ''Charan Singh versus Kishan Chander''. Appellant Charan Singh came inside the Court and disclosed that Surinder Singh Bhatia had taken Rs. 23,500/- from him for getting the case decided in his favour. Both Charan Singh and Surinder Singh were present in the Court. Surinder Singh Bhatia, who was standing in front of the door of the Court room, was called inside the Court room. Surinder Singh Bhatia admitted before the witness that he had taken Rs. 23,500/- from the appellant and returned Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant in the presence of Reader Darshan Lal, Subhash Chand Public Prosecutor, Mr. Kahlon, Public Prosecutor, Avtar Singh, Peon, Prem Kumar, Peon and Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdeep Singh. With regard to Rs. 3500/-, Surinder Singh Bhatia stated that he would return the said amount to the appellant in the village. Appellant gave in writing to the witness that money had been taken from him by Surinder Singh and also with regard to return of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to him by Surinder Singh Bhatia. Witnesses proved the relevant documents in this regard. Statement of PW-3 was duly corroborated by PW-4 Paramjit Singh Kahlon and PW-6 Darshan Lal, Reader.

Appellant when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (''Cr.P.C.'' for short), after the close of prosecution evidence, pleaded as under:

In the civil case between me and Krishan Chander we had compromised and as a term of the compromise, Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid to me by Krishan Chander in the Court. Krishan Chander had entrusted Rs. 20,000/- to Surinder Singh co-accused in this, who was to make payment to me in Court on the alleged day of the occurrence and he had brought the money with him for payment on that day to me. I had not given any amount to Surinder Singh to be paid as bribe to the Sub Judge concerned, or anybody else to decide the case in my favour. I have been falsely implicated in this case. After the alleged occurrence, the matter was compromised in Court as agreed between us earlier.

Accused examined three witnesses in their defence.

Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 19.1.2004/22.1.2004 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 8 of the Act read with Section 109 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

There is no dispute that suit filed by the appellant was ultimately decided on the basis of compromise on 18.1.1996. Order passed by the Court as well as statement made by appellant Charan Singh in this regard have been placed on record. A perusal of the statement of the complainant Ex. DB reveals that appellant had given a statement that in view of compromise between the parties, he did not want to further proceed with the suit and prayed that the suit be dismissed. Order Ex. DC was passed by the Court on the basis of the statement of the appellant.

Occurrence in the present case is dated 6.11.1995 whereas the compromise was effected by the appellant in the suit filed by him on 18.1.1996. DW-2 Varinder Kumar son of Krishan Chander (defendant in the suit filed by the appellant) had admitted in his cross-examination that no compromise was effected between them prior to the year 1996. No writing was executed qua entrusment of Rs. 23,500/- to accused Surinder Singh nor to the effect that Surinder Singh would hand over Rs. 23,500/- to Charan Singh-appellant in the Court on his statement to withdraw the suit. He further admitted that amount of Rs. 23,500/- was to be paid to Charan Singh after his statement was recorded in the Court.

Thus, from the statement of DW-2, it is evident that no compromise was effected between the parties prior to the year 1996. In these circumstances, the plea taken by the appellant in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., fails to inspire confidence. In case the amount in question was to be paid to the appellant on account of compromise effected between the parties, then there was no occasion for appellant Charan Singh to have made statement before the Judicial Officer that he had paid the amount in question to his co-accused for getting the case decided in his favour. The Presiding Officer had no ill will against the appellant to have falsely involved him in this case. Rather, offence committed by the appellant is serious in nature. Appellant had given money to his co-accused so that the same could be passed on as bribe to the Presiding Officer for getting the case decided in his favour but the same had been retained by co-accused Surinder Singh Bhatia and had not been passed over to the Presiding Officer. Thus, it is evident that the appellant had abetted offence committed by his co-accused Surinder Singh Bhatia u/s 8 of the Act. The prosecution witnesses i.e. the judicial officer, Reader of the Court and Public Prosecutor had duly supported the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s 8 of the Act read with Section 109 IPC. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.