Harbans Singh vs The State

Gopal Singh, J.—This is appeal by Harbans Singh. He has been convicted u/s 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and u/s 161. Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The facts of the prosecution case are as under: The appellant was Patwari of village Ghagga, Chand Singh resident of that village orally applied to the appellant for supply of certified copy of khasra girdawari of his agricultural land as he wanted to file in Court a suit for declaration. The appellant demanded Rs. 200 as bribe for the copy applied for being supplied to Chand Singh. The amount was negotiated down to Rs. 100. On September 23, 1967, Chand Singh contacted Jatinder Singh Kalha, Public Grievances Officer at Patiala and told him about the demand from him by the appellant of bribe of Rs. 100 in connection with the supply of a certified copy to him. As arranged, Chand Singh met again Jatinder Singh Kalha on September 24, 1967 at Police Station Ghagga. His statement Exhibit P.A, to the above effect was recorded. Chand Singh gave currency note of Rs. 100, Exhibit P. 1 to Jatinder Singh Kalha. He signed that currency note and returned it to Chand Singh, Memo, pertaining to the delivery to Chand Singh of the signed currency note of Rs. 100 along with its other particulars is exhibit P.B. As a result of the trap devised, Chand Singh was to hand over that currency note, Exhibit P, 1 to the appellant while Jatinder Singh Kalha, Sardul Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Harnek Singh were to keep themselves concealed at some distance and on signal being given by Chand Singh, the party waiting for the signal would arrive at the spot of passing of the bribe and effect recovery. Chand Singh accordingly passed currency note, Exhibit P. 1 to the appellant while he was sitting in a room in his house. On indication being given by Chand Singh that the money had passed to the appellant, the other members of the party waiting at a distante of 40 karams from the house of the appellant arrived there. The currency note was recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the appellant Memo pertaining to its recovery is Exhibit P.C.

At the trial, the case of the prosecution was supported by the testimony of Chand Singh P.W. 1, Harnek Singh P.W. 2, Jatinder Singh Kalha P.W. 3 and Sardal Singh P.W. 4, Chand Singh proved the passing of money by way of bribe while Chand Singh and the other three witnesses proved the factum of recovery of currency note of Rs. 100, Exhibit P. 1 from the person of the appellant.

In his statement u/s 342. Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant pleaded that he had lent sum of Rs. 100 to Jai Singh, resident of village Dhudial, that Jai Singh had returned the amount borrowed by handing over currency note, Exhibit P. 1 to Chand Singh for its being delivered to the appellant and that it was in lieu of the sum of Rs. 100 borrowed by Jai Singh that Chand Singh delivered that amount so the appellant in discharge of the debt owing by Jai Singh to the appellant and that amount had not been accepted as a bribe. In support of the plea of his defence, he produced Jai Singh D.W. 1 and Jagrup Singh D.W, 2, Gurcharan Singh D.W. 3, Hardev Singh D.W. 4 and Hem Raj Patwari D.W. 5, appeared for production of certain documents summoned through them Gurcharan Singh and Hardev Singh did not produce any documents at all. Hem Raj, who is Patwari, produced certain certified copies marked as Exhibits D.A, to D.F. These documents have, however, not been relied upon by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Y.P. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that on the basis of prosecution evidence, it has not been proved beyond doubt that the currency note of Rs. 100, Exhibit P. 1 passed as illegal gratification and that the defence evidences of Jai Singh and Jagrup Singh led on behalf of the appellant in support of plea of defense shows that the said amount passed not by way of bribe but in lieu of discharge of debt owing by Jai Singh to the appellant.

In the face of admission made by the appellant in his statement u/s 342. Code of Criminal Procedure supported by the evidence of Jai Singh and Jagrup Singh D. Ws., it is not necessary to discuss the evidence of the prosecution in so far as the passing of the currency note Rs. 100 to the appellant is concerned. The only question, which survives for consideration, is whether that amount passed by way of illegal gratification or it passed in discharge of the liability, which Jai Singh incurred by borrowing Rs. 100 from the appellant. In order to prove the purpose of bribe, for which the currency note of Rs. 100. Exhibit P 1 is said to have passed to the appellant, the prosecution have relied on the solitary statement of Chand Singh. No corroboration whatsoever of his statement is forthcoming to show that the amount had passed as bribe. One of the witnesses, who joined the trap party, is Harnek Singh. He stated that he stood outside the house of the appellant away from it and had concealed himself along with other members to the party waiting for the signal. There is no reason why Harnek Singh should not have been made to act as a shadow witness and deputed to stand close to Chand Singh at the time the currency note, Exhibit P. 1 passed to the appellant to enable him not only to see that the currency note had passed from Chand Singh to the appellant but also to enable him to hear the purpose for which the amount was being paid by Chand Singh to the appellant. It is stated by Chand Singh that he continued requesting the appellant for supply of a certified copy of khasra gardawari for a period of one month prior to the date, on which the trap was made to work and that the appellant did not care to supply that copy to him. This must have led to the estrangement and all will between the two. Chand Singh is in the position of a decoy witness and an accomplice. He was interested against the appellant and must have striven to see that the trap was successfully through. His testimony did require corroboration of independent character. No corroboration at all much less corroboration of an independent witness, especially when one in Harnek Singh could be available, is forthcoming.

The stand taken by Chand Singh that he applied for supply of certified copy to the appellant as the same was required for filing a declaratory suit is rather indefinite and vague. It is not clear from his statement as to what exactly was the nature of the suit for declaration, which he wanted to file and what was the cause of action for filing that suit. Illustratively he could say that the suit for declaration had to be filed either because there was some interference with his possession over certain area of land by the person against whom he wanted to file the suit or that there had taken place some sale and he being collateral of the vendor was entitled to file a declaratory suit. In the absence of any concrete facts pertaining to the nature of the suit contemplated to be instituted by him, it is very difficult to depend upon his bare word that he wanted to file a suit for declaration.

As against the above infirm and inconclusive evidence of the prosecution pertaining to the purpose, for which the sum of Rs. 100 is said to have passed from Chand Singh to the appellant, we have the evidence of two defense witnesses amply establishing that the amount was paid in discharge of the debt owing to the appellant by Jai Singh, Chand Singh stated the he was married in village Duadial where Jai Singh resides. Jai Singh stated that on his demand the appellant lent him Rs. 100 at bus Stand, Ghagga, where he required the same, that the amount in the form or currency note of Rs. 100 was entrusted by him to Chand Singh, who was married in his fraternity in his village: Thus, there is nothing unlikely in there being contacts between the appellant and Jai Singh on the one hand and Jai Singh and Chand Singh on the other hand the sum of Rs. 100 having been lent by the appellant to Jai Singh at a time of an emergent necessity of the latter as deposed to by Jai Singh and the said sum having been handed over by Jai Singh to Chand Singh for its delivery to the appellant.

The next witness relied upon by the appellant in support of the fact of the amount having passed towards the discharge of that debt is Jagrup Singh. The appellant is tenant of Jagrup Singh. In that house he lives and runs his office as Patwari. As stated by Jagrup Singh, the residential part, in which he lives and the other part, in which the appellant lived and lives have a common court-yard. Thus, there is nothing unlikely in his being present in the court-yard on the date, when Chand Singh came to the house to the appellant and gave the sum of Rs. 100 to him. He is quite a natural witness. Nothing was elicited in course of his cross examination to suggest that either he could not been present at the time the money passed or the facts deposed to by him Could not be true and correct, I have no reason to doubt the testimony either of Jai Singh or of Jagrup Singh. Neither of them his been in any way found to be inimically disposed towards Chand Singh so as to give evidence against his interest without any just cause.

The prosecution having failed to conclusively establish the purpose, for which the money passed and the defense evidence showing that the money passed or could have passed for the innocent purpose of discharge of the debt of Jai Singh owing by him to the appellant by availing of the services of Chand Singh as carrier of sum of Rs. 100 in the form of currency note, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. The appellant could not be held guilty for offence of acceptance of illegal gratification unless there is established by the prosecution the mutuality of intention between the appellant and his bribe-griver. The evidence should conclusively show that the appellant intended to take the bribe and his giver wanted to give the amount as bribe. If the evidence does cast doubt as to the amount given by the giver having passed either as bribe or for some innocuous purpose, the appellant could not be held guilty. It was held in Kans Raj v. The State 1, that the offence of bribe could be held to have been committed only if the receiver of the bribe had the intention to accept the amount offered as bribe. Even if the so called giver of the bribe hands over certain amount to the receiver or leaves the amount of bribe to be given in front of the receiver but the receiver does not consciously and deliberately receive the amount as bribe and has no intention to receive it as such, the offence of acceptance of bribe could not be held to have been committed. There must be mutuality between the intention of giver of the bribe and that of the acceptor of the bribe. The giver must intend to give and the receiver must intend to take the amount as bribe. Unless the intentions of both of them coalesce, the resultant act could not constitute the offence of taking a bribe on the part of the recipient of the amount received.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow the appeal set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellant and acquit him.