Kanwar Pal Singh vs State of Punjab .

S.C. Malte, J.

Both these matters arise out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the two accusedappellants. Both these accused were prosecuted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 161 I.P.C. The prosecution case is that both these accused demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/ in order to complete the pension papers of complainant Tarlok Chand and give him the cheque of the amount. Complainant Tarlok Chand claims that on 18.2.1986 he had been to the office of the Defence Pension Disbursement Office, Gurdaspur. There he happened to meet accused Kanwarpal Singh who then demanded Rs. 500/ as illegal gratification for clearing the pension papers of Tarlok Chand and for giving the cheque of the amount due. After negotiation, the amount of illegal gratification was settled at Rs. 300/. Thereupon the complainant approached the Vigilance Department on 19.2.1986. There his complaint was duly recorded. Thereupon in the presence of witnesses, currency notes of Rs. 300/ were treated with phenolphthalein powder after following the due procedure and precautions. That amount was handed over to complainant Tarlok Chand with the direction that he shall give the amount to the accused, on demand by him. Witness Roop Chand was to accompany the complainant Tarlok Chand, and he was to witness the events and give the signal after the amount was accepted by the accused. The raiding party then came near the office of the accused. Tarlok Chand and witness Roop Chand arrived in the office. On seeing them, accused Kanwarpal Singh is said to have enquired from Tarlok Chand as to whether he has brought the amount of Rs. 300/. On getting the affirmative reply, the accused Kanwarpal Singh assured that the work of Tarlok Chand would be done. Thereafter both these accused and the complainant and the witness proceeded towards the nearby railway crossing. Thereupon accused Kanwarpal Singh directed Tirlok Chand to pay the amount to accused Bhisham Raj. The amount was accordingly paid to accused Bhisham Raj. He put that amount wrapped in a handkerchief. Thereupon raiding party got the signal. The accused were duly apprehended. The tainted amount was recovered from accused Bhisham Raj. After further investigation chargesheet against the accused was submitted.

On the completion of investigation, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution case in toto. Accused Kanwarpal Singh claimed that complainant Tarlok Chand never approached him in connection with the pension papers because he was not dealing with those papers. According to him, one Prem Kumar Bhatia was dealing with the case of Tarlok Chand and accused Kanwarpal Singh was not at all concerned with that file. He further claimed that on 18.2.1986 he along with other officials had been to town Kahnaur to disburse pension to the military personnel, and was thus out of office from 8.30 A.M. till 6.00 P.M. He further claims that he was on leave from 19.2.1986. He claimed that on 19.2.1986 he had gone to the Railway Station for cancellation of certain tickets booked for Meerut which is his home town.

Accused Bhisham Raj denied the prosecution case in toto. He also put forth the case similar to the case put by accused Tarlok Chand.

The learned Special Judge was of the view that the acceptance of the tainted money is potent with the demand for it, and it does by necessary implication prove the demand for illegal gratification. He was of the view that since the tainted money was found with the accused, it is sufficient to raise irresistible inference that the amount had been given because it was demanded, as no person would accept money from a stranger. As regards the claim of the accused that they were on leave on 19.2.1986, he was of the view that the muster roll showing the accused on leave, must have been in all probabilities created to help the accused. Regarding the claim that the accused was not dealing with the file of the complainant, the learned Special Judge was of the view that it is not necessary to show that the work to be done was in discharge of the official duties.

The counsel for the appellants submitted that since the evidence on record shows that on 18.2.1986 these accused were not in the office but had gone to disburse pension, that throws a doubt on the prosecution case that the accused demanded illegal gratification on that day. On this premise, he further submits that the claim made by the complainant that he thereupon had been to the Vigilance Department to make a complaint against the accused loses its foundation. He has reiterated the contention raised by the accused in the trial Court.

The counsel for the State in general supported the reasons given by the trial Court and submitted that the conviction and sentence was rightly awarded.

In order to spell out an offence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, it becomes necessary to ascertain from the evidence as to whether the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that the accused demanded illegal gratification. As per the prosecution case, complainant Tarlok Chand had been to the office of the accused on 18.2.1986, on which date, allegedly the accused demanded illegal gratification and the amount was settled at Rs. 300/. This incident certainly speaks about the initial demand of the illegal gratification. The subsequent events shown in the complaint and the consequent raid has its foundation in the incident on 18.2.1986. Therefore, in my opinion, the evidence regarding demand on 18.2.1986 deserves due consideration. On one hand there is testimony of the complainant that on 18.2.1986 he had been to the office of the accused, and then there was a demand for illegal gratification. On the other hand, the accused have placed on record evidence showing that on 18.2.1986 both these accused and other officials of the office had gone to Kahnaur for disbursement of the amount. PW1 Prem Kumar Bhatia from the office of the accused has stated so in his evidence. He further states that whole party left Gurdaspur at about 8.30 A.M. and returned at about 6.00 P.M. The trial Court does not say that the evidence of PW1 Prem Kumar in that respect was doubtful. He, however, brushed aside the issue by observing that the evidence in respect of presence of the accused on 18.2.1986 loses significance when one finds that the tainted money was found with the accused which, according to him, supports the demand for such amount. In my opinion, the approach of the learned Special Judge is not quite sound. The whole prosecution case has its base on the event of demand on 18.2.1986. If that becomes doubtful, the accused would be certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt, particularly in the light of other pieces of evidence to which I will make a reference to the subsequent part of this judgment.

The prosecution evidence is that on 19.2.1986 raid was conducted, and the accused were held by the police. The prosecution evidence further shows that the tainted money was recovered from the accused Bhisham Raj. The defence evidence, on the other hand, shows that the accused were on leave on that day. The evidence of musterroll in that respect has been discarded by the trial Court on the reasoning that there was a possibility of manipulating the attendance register in order to save the accused. In my opinion, it would not be quite justifiable to proceed on the possibility of tampering of attendance register, unless there is some material to show that the register was tampered. The evidence shows that the complainant and the raiding party went to the office of the accused at about 3.30 P.M. The attendance register in a Government office is required to be filled in at the beginning of the office hours in the morning. Such a routine official function while maintaining musterroll can be certainly taken into consideration. The normal natural inference would be that the official functions have been performed in the Government Office in a usual regular manner. In view of that it becomes very difficult to jump to the conclusion that the musterroll could have been tampered with at a later stage. The trial Court has nowhere indicated that the entry or the writing in the musterroll register appeared to have been overwritten or erased, or something like that, which would justify the inference of tampering. In my opinion, the benefit of doubt in that respect would certainly go to the accused.

The prosecution evidence is led to show that the accused demanded the illegal gratification in order to clear up the pension papers and give the cheque of the amount. The undisputed evidence is that none of the accused was concerned with the section of the office in which the pension papers were being dealt with. Admittedly, the functions of the office are divided into two parts, viz. first pension payment, and subsequent pension payment. The case of the complainant Tarlok Chand pertains to the initial pension payment. The accused, on the other hand, were in the section dealing with the subsequent payment of the pension. This aspect has been brushed aside by the trial Court on the ground that the spelling of the offence did not depend on the proof of the fact that the accused were dealing with the official work for which illegal gratification was demanded. In a given case that reason certainly sounds well. In this case, however, the aspect is required to be considered in a different perspective. The complainant claims that he had approached the office of the accused in order to get his pension papers cleared for initial payment of pension. In that case one would expect the complainant to approach that section of the office which would deal with such pension papers. In my opinion, therefore, the claim made by the complainant that he approached the accused for the work with which the accused were not concerned, sounds rather unbelievable. This aspect certainly militates against the prosecution case right from its foundation of demand of money for clearing the initial pension papers.

Further, I find that the evidence of the witness Roop Chand is also far from being satisfactory. PW7 Roop Chand had accompanied the complainant during the raid, and had given the signal after money passed to the accused. He is one of the witnesses to show that the passing of the tainted money was proceeded by demand by the accused for it. His evidence in that respect is led to prove the demand and acceptance of the tainted money. His cross examination indicates that he is also pensioner from the Army. The complainant is also a pensioner from the Army. PW7 Roop Chand is resident of Saraf Chak. The complainant Tarlok Chand is also resident of Saraf Chak. Admittedly, they both have good relations. The complainant claims that on 19.2.1986 he happened to meet Roop Chand at Taragarh. From there they seemed to have gone to Gurdaspur and approached the Vigilance Bureau. This accidental meeting of complainant Tarlok Chand and PW7 Roop Chand sounds rather strange when one finds that PW7 Roop Chand admits in crossexamination that on 19.2.1986 he had been to Taragarh though he had no work there. Thus, the evidence of PW7 Roop Chand is also not free from doubt.

Thus, on taking into consideration these various aspects revealed by the prosecution evidence, I am of the view that both these accused deserve benefit of doubt. Hence the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused is hereby set aside and they stand acquitted. Fine if paid should be refunded to them.