Ram Jaspal Kanungo . vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Gurcharan Singh PW 8 and his brother Bakshish Singh jointly owned 41/2 killas of land in village Hissowal which was being cultivated by Bakshish Singh. After obtaining a decree for partition of the joint lands from the Revenue of competent jurisdiction Gurcharan Singh approached the accused in Kanungo Ram Jaspal and Patwari Santokh Singh for getting the decree implemented. Accused told him (Gurcharan Singh) that execution of the decree would cost him Rs. 200/. On his asking for concession, both the accused after consulting each other told him that it would in no case be less than an Rs. 100/. A sum of Rs. 25/ out of it was paid to the Kanunpo there and then and the remaining Rs. 75/ were agreed to be paid to the Patwari and Kanungo on the following day. Kanuago was to get Rs. 50/ more and the Patwari was to be paid Rs. 25/ of his share.

On the following day Gurcharan Singh approached the Vigilance Department. Inspector Mela Ram P.W. 11 organised a raid. Rs. 50/ were paid to the Kanungo and Rs. 25/ to the Patwari coaccused Santokh Singh. On getting the of read cod signal from Gurpal Singh P.W. 9 the raiding party reached the office of Kanungo, recovered Rs. 50/ from him and the balance of Rs. 25/ from coaccused Patwari Santokh Singh and on the basis of mere recovery aforesaid prosecuted the two accused under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Vide its impugned judgment dated August 1, 1985 learned trial court convicted both the accused of the commission of offence under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to undergo individually rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay Rs. 2000/ each as fine. In default of payment of fine each one of the two accused was individually ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Feeling aggrieved therefrom convicted accused Ram Jaspal Kanungo has filed Criminal Appeal No. 377SB of 1985 and coaccused Santokh Singh had filed Criminal Appeal No. 463SB of 1985 in this Court. Since both the appeals have been filed against the same judgment and involve common question of law and fact for determination, these have been heard and are being disposed of together.

I have heard Shri P.S. Mann, Senior Advocate, with Shri Harminder Pal Singh, Advocate, for petitionerappellant Santokh Singh, Shri R.S. Rai, Advocate, for the Kanungo appellant Ram Jaspal and Shri B.S. Gill, A.A.G. Pb. for the state and have carefully gone though the entire material on record.

While getting the First Information Report registered in Police Station Sudhar of Ludhiana district around 10.45 A.M. on December 1, 1982 complainant Gurcharan Singh is recorded to have given out, "Thereupon I asked Sh. Ram Jaspal aforesaid Quanungo as to when he would do the work of delivery of possession. Sh. Santokh Singh Patwari of our Halqa was also present in the office at this time. It would be about 10/11 A.M. Sh. Ram Jaspal Quanungo and aforesaid Santokh Singh Patwari said to me that they both would do my job and the same would cost Rs. 200/. I made entreaties before them. They having connived with each other said to me that they would not take less than Rs. 100/. I being helpless agreed to pay Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification to both the aforesaid persons S/Shri Ram Jaspal Quanungo, and Santokh Singh Patwari. Thereupon Sh. Ram Jaspal Quanungo said to me that he would take Rs. 75/ and Sh. Santokh Singh Patwari would take Rs. 25/ as his share and both the persons demanded Rs. 100/ from me. But I told them that I had Rs. 25/ only with me. Sh. Ram Jaspal aforesaid Quanungo, demanded Rs. 25/ as illegal gratifications and took the same from me. Thereafter Sh. Ram Jaspal and Santokh Singh aforesaid persons said to me to bring the remaining amount of Rs. 75/ as illegal gratification to their office before noon the same day and also told that then they would do my job. I did not want to give the remaining amount of Rs. 75/ as bribe to Sh. Ram Jaspal Quanungo and Sh. Santokh Singh Patwari, the aforesaid persons. I wanted that legal action be taken against Sh. Ram Jaspal Quanungo and Sh. Santokh Singh Patwari both the aforesaid persons. The currency notes amounting to Rs. 75/ i.e. one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50/, one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 20/ and one currency note of that of Rs. 5/ which I am going to pay to Sh. Ram Jaspal Quanungo and Sh. Santokh Singh Patwari aforesaid persons as illegal gratification on their demand is hereby produced before you. The complainant, therefore, did not assert that either of the two accused demanded anthing from him by way of illegal gratification. Doing the job of delivering actual physical separate possession by partition was, according to the two accused, to cost complainant Rs. 200/ which amount was on entreaties the complainant made to them, reduced by the two accused to Rs. 100/ instead of Rs. 200/. It, of course involved the visit of both the accused to village Hissowal from village Sudhar, carrying the relevant records with them, taking the heavy iron ''Jarls'' for measurement and employing some local resident to hold one side of it for measurement, while the other end is being held by the Patwari, in the course of it etc, There is thus no evidence of demand of illegal gratification.

Besides it, the alleged recovery of the amount of illegal gratification has not been supported even by the shadow witness Gurpal Singh P.W.9; much less by any independent witness of the locality. Deposition of Gurpal Singh P.9 reads, "I was working as an Artist in the District Public Relations Office for the last 11 years. In the year 1982, I was joined by the Vigilance staff Ludhiana under the order of DPRO. I along with Mela Ram Inspector, S.I. Harbans Singh an official of Vigilance staff and Gurcharan Singh went to Sudhar in a car. I was not told the object of my joining. We reached Sudhar. I alone was dropped near the Police Station Sudhar. The Vigilance staff and Gurcharan Singh parked the car near the bridge of canal of Sudhar. The police party returned to the Police Station after some time and Inspector got my signature on white paper. The accused were never apprehended in my presence while accepting bribe from the complainant nor any recovery was effected in my presence. I do not know anything about this case excepting this." Shadow witness thus gives a complete he to the prosecution assertions against the two accused. Entire edifice built by the Vigilance Department against the two accused thus collapses like a house of cards. Complainant Gurcharan Singh PW 8 and the two police men in S.I. Harbans Singh PW 10 and Investigating Officer Mela Ram PW 11 were all the three interested in the success of the raid and cannot, therefore, be relied upon for proving assertions made by the prosecution against the two accused.

In almost similar circumstances it was observed by this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 621, "In a case like this, to bring home the guilt to the accused, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant and had accepted the same in pursuance of the demand. To prove these allegations merely the statement of the complainant or the trap witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration It has been held by the Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974(II) CLR 611, that trap witnesses in a case under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being concerned in success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statement before convicting the accused. The same view is expressed in Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1976 CLR 366 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 CLR 93, It has been held in these cases that no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of trapwitnesses in the absence of independent corroboration because the trapwitnesses are interested and partisan witnesses and on that account they spring from tainted source." Need for seeking independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and shadow witness was also emphasised in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) RCR 123. It has repeatedly been laid down by the final Court that the giver of bribe is normally to be treated as accomplice, and before recording the conviction of the delinquent government servant, independent corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice i.e. the complainant and the shadow witness is normally sought for if not as a matter of law then at least as a matter of prudence. In this case Tilak Raj would have provided the necessary corroboration and his nonexamination casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.

For the reasons given above, both the Criminal Appeals succeed and are allowed. Both the accused in their individual appeals are acquitted. The two convicted accused are on bail. Bail bonds furnished by their sureties and personal bonds put in by the two accused themselves shall stand discharged. Fine, if realised, would be refunded to the two accused appellants.