Jagseer Singh vs The State of Punjab

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present appeal is against the judgment dated 4.3.1991 of learned Special Judge, Faridkot vide which the appellant has been convicted for an offence u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period one and half years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

As per prosecution case, one Teja Singh, after informing the office of Vigilance Department, approached the accused for getting the copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. The accused demanded Rs. 300/- for supplying the Copies. However, on the request of the complainant, the accused agreed to take Rs. 200/- and promised to supply the copies on the next day. The complainant alongwith one Balwant Singh, resident of the village, came to Faridkot in the office of Vigilance Department and made a statement Ex.PD. The same was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case and on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded. The complainant produced 2 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination before Inspector Gurbachan Singh, who applied the phenol phthalian powder on the same and also noted the number thereof before handing over the same to the complainant. The complainant was instructed by Inspector Gurbachan Singh to go infront of the police party and Balwant Singh will follow him. The complainant will pay the money to the accused and Balwant Singh will give a signal to the police party by putting his hand on the head. The Inspector summoned Jagroop Singh, an official from the office of Animal Husbandry, Faridkot as well. After such preparation, the complainant and Balwant Singh went to the office of the accused who demanded Rs. 200/- for the supply of the copies. Teja Singh paid the said amount which the accused put in the right side of his pocket of his pant. Thereafter, the accused handed over the copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. Balwant Singh gave a signal to the police party. The police party reached there. The Inspector gave his introduction to the accused and asked him to not to move. Sodium corbonate was put into water but its colour did not change. However, when the hands of the accused were washed, colour of the water changed to light pink. The solution was put into a nip which was sealed. Signatory chit of Jagroop Singh was also affixed on it. On completion of formalities of recovery and obtaining the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed.

The prosecution examined number of witnesses including the witness to prove the delivery of copies of Jamabandi and Khasra girdawari The prosecution also produced PW-6 Teja Singh-complainant, PW-7 Balwant Singh a shadow witness, PW-9 Jagroop Singh an eye witness to the recovery, apart from PW 10, the Investigating Officer.

On the basis of evidence produced before learned trial Court, the accused was found guilty for an offence u/s 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and wit his assistance gone through the record of the case.

However, I am unable to find any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has produced independent witness Jagroop Singh, an official of the Animal Husbandary department and Gurbachan Singh, Inspector of the Vigilance Department. Balwant Singh, a shadow witness, has also been produced, apart from the complainant Teja Singh. No infirmity or hostility has been alleged or proved against any of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution case in its entirety. There is no infirmity in the prosecution case either in procedure or in substance. Therefore, the findings recorded by learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the present appellant for an offence u/s 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act is wholly justified. The recovery was effected from the pocket of the pant of the accused. The revenue record sought for has been supplied by the accused. Thus, I do not find that the view taken by the learned trial Court in any way suffers from any illegality.

However, the fact remains that the appellant was convicted in the year 1991. He has undergone trial for a period of 2 years. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that because of conviction, the appellant is out of job. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts and in view of Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 S C 806 and M.W. Mohiuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, , I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of.