Sohan Lal vs State

A.S. Bains, J.

Sohan Lal appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced of undergo one year'' rigorous imprisonment under each count and a fine of Rs. 100/ under the first count, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated May 9 and 10, 1980. Hence, this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The appeal first came up for hearing before C.S. Tiwana, J. who maintained the conviction vide his order dated July 30, 1982. The Supreme Court vide order dated December 2, 1982, directed to rehear appeal after affording the parties an opportunity. This is how the appeal has come up before me.

The prosecution case as set up at the trial was that P.W. 3 Pohu Lal's bullock was injured and the appellant used to come to his house for dressing the appellant used to charge Rs. 15/ for each visit by saying that he was officially entitled to do so. He did not turn up subsequently and the wound became septic. Pohu Lal PW 3 contacted the appellant to treat the bullock but the appellant demanded Rs. 15/ for doing the needful. Since Pohu Lal did not have any money at that time, the appellant said that he would visit his house on the next day at 11.00 a.m. and would then dress the wound on obtaining a sum of Rs. 15/. Since Pohu Lal PW did not want to pay that amount by way of bribe, he contacted Inspector Santokh Singh (P.W. 8), Incharge of the Vigilance Bureau, Ropar, who recorded the statement of Pohu Lal and organised a raid party. Two currency notes of the total value of Rs. 15/ to which phenolphthalein powder was applied were handed over to Pohu Lal for being paid as bribe on demand to the appellant. Rolu Ram (P.W. 4) was to act as shadow witness. The party then went near Pohu Lal's house at about 10.00 a.m. and the amoutn was paid on demand by Pohu Lal to the appellant which was subsequently recovered from him.

At the trial the appellant denied the prosecution version. His version is as under :

"I am innocent. I administered vaccine for foot and mouth disease on 13.1.1979 on credit to the two bullocks of Pohu Lal, two buffaloes, one buffalohiefer of Pohu Lal, as per Government instructions Exhibit DE. As Pohu Lal had no money with him and the vaccine was to be finished within two hours. If not used it was likely to spoil and I gave this vaccine on credit on my persona level to be recovered later on but Pohu Lal did no pay this money. I demanded the price of this vaccine in the presence of inlaws of Pohu Lal's daughter and on this Pohu Lal felt annoyed and got this case fabricated with the help of Sardari Lal, a man of Inspector Santokh Singh."

He also produced Ram Rattan (D.W. 1) and Mast Ram (D.W. 2) in his defence.

The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Pohu Lal (PW. 3), Rolu Ram P.W. 4 and Inspector Santokh (P.W. 8). Pohu Lal (P.W. 3) has supported the prosecution version as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. Shri Santokh Singh, Vigilance Inspector (P.W. 8) also supported the version concerning him. Roly Ram PW had supported the prosecution version but not fully. He, however, admitted that while he was present at the time of occurrence, the appellant had demanded money for the treatment of the bullock. He also deposed that money was paid by Pohu Lal to the appellant. The purpose of his visited to the house of Pohu Lal was to help him in dressing the bullock as it could not be controlled by Pohu Lal alone.

Mr. G.S. Grewal, counsel for the appellant, canvassed that much reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of Pohu Lal (PW. 3) as he knew one constable earlier and that there is no corroboration, to his statement when the money was first demanded by the appellant. I do not find any merit in this contention of Mr. Grewal. There is nothing against Pohu Lal on record. He is a simple villager and he has in all fairness stated the whole story in a simple manner. He had no axe to grind against the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has himself admitted the payment of money but in a different manner. According to him he was to collect the price of the vaccine from the complainant Pohu Lal on the date of occurrence and Rs. 15/ were paid to him by the complainant as price for vaccine. This defence is highly improbable and cannot be accepted. The Veterinary Doctors do not sell the vaccine on credit. Moreover, the appellant had no jurisdiction to leave his place and to go after Pohu Lal to receive the amount, in his village. The production of an entry Exhibit PQ contained in the movement register is also of no help to the appellant. The said entry is at the last page. It therefore, could be fabricated at a later stage. The villagers are simple on people and these public servants working in the villages to serve the villagers, in fact try to exploit their simplicity by taking bride. There is also corroboration to the statement of Pohu Lal PW when the money was demanded for the first time. Rolu Ram also corroborated that fact that the money was demanded in his presence. Moreover, there is nothing against the Vigilance Inspector also. The Vigilance Inspector could not implacable the appellant falsely merely on the asking of a villagers like Pohu Lal. I am of the view that the statement of the complainant and the Inspector inspire confidence and much corroboration is not needed where the testimony of a decoy witness inspires confidence and who had no animus against the appellant.

For the reasons recorded, I am of the view that no case is made out for taking a different view than that taken by the trial. Court on the evidence on the record. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is maintained.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant is a first offender and is a family man. He has already lost his service and has undergoes about six months of his substantive sentences. Reference was made to Vasant Moghe v. State of Maharashtra, 1979(3) Supreme Court Cases 771 and S. Natarajaa v. State of Mysore, 1980 C.A.R. 168 (SC). In Vasant Moghe's case (Supra) it was observed as follows :

"In regard to the sentences the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has lost his job and is now a broken man and therefore, he may not be sent back to prison after so many years, this appeal having been admitted on 1972. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we think that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant back to jail. The sentence of imprisonment passed on the appellant in each of the case is reduced to the period of imprisonment already suffered by him. The sentences of will, however, stand,"

A similar view was taken in S. Natrajan's case (supra), wherein it was observed as under :

"The accused has already lost his service and in the facts and circumstances of this case we think that no serious notice may be taken of the offence. The appeal itself was confined only to the question of sentence. For these reasons we would reduce sentences of the appellant under Section 409 I.P.C., to the period already served and as regards the conviction under Section 5(1) (c) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act we suspend the sentence and release the appellant under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and maintain the sentence of fine and directed him to execute a personal bond of Rs. 2000/ for a period of one year and maintain good behaviour during this period, failing which he will have to receive the remaining portion of his sentences. The sentence of fine is maintained."

Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the ratio of the authorities referred to above, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be amply met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone but his sentence of fine is maintained.

In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed except for the alteration in the quantum of sentence as indicated above.