Judgment:
CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004. Decided on:-May 14, 2014. Daljit Kumar. .........Appellant. Versus State of Punjab. .........Respondent. CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon. ***** Argued by:- Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
Details of the appeal This appeal is preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 19.7.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala, vide which accused-appellant Daljit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was held guilty in case FIR No.57 dated 30.9.1999 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) and was sentenced as under: Offence Sentence In default Under Section 7 of the RI for two years and fine RI for three months Act. of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 13(2) RI for two years and fine RI for three months of the Act. of Rs.1,000/- Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -2- However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Case of the prosecution 2. The prosecution case, put in brief, is as under:
2. 1 Chajju Singh (hereinafter mentioned as the complainant) is an agriculturist. He wanted to maintain records of his land holdings and also required the same for some court case and thus, required copy of Jamabandi. For this purpose, he contacted the accused on 29.9.1999 who was posted as Patwari. The accused demanded Rs.800/- as bribe from the complainant to supply him a copy of Jamabandi. The matter was, however, settled at Rs.400/-. 2.2 As the complainant was not interested to pay the amount, he alongwith one Gurmukh Singh, went to report the matter to the Vigilance Department on 30.9.1999. On the statement of the complainant, a formal FIR was registered. Narinderpal Kaushal DSP (Vigilance) planned a raid. The complainant gave 4 currency notes of Rs.100/- each to the investigating officer who returned the same to the complainant after treating those with phenolphthalein powder (hereinafter mentioned as P. Powder). The demonstration of P. Powder was given to the complainant and Gurmukh Singh, and a memo in this regard was prepared wherein details of these currency notes had also been noted. 2.3 As planned, said currency notes were to be handed over by the complainant to the accused on demand. Gurmukh Singh was to act as a shadow witness. He was then to give a prefixed signal to the remaining members of the raiding party after the tainted currency notes were to exchange hands from the complainant to the accused on demand. Harjit Singh, Accountant, Nagar Panchayat, village Ghagga was joined in the raiding party. Only the complainant and shadow witness were to go to the accused at first instance and rest of the members of the raiding party were to Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -3- wait for receipt of the stated signal to be given by the shadow witness. As per planning, the complainant and shadow witness went to the office of the accused. Remaining raiding party stayed behind. Its members were standing scattered at different nearby locations to avoid crowding. 2.4 It is further the case of the prosecution that on demand, the tainted currency notes were handed over to the accused, who then gave copy of Jamabandi to the complainant. Pre-determined signal was given by the shadow witness to the investigating officer. Receiving signal from the shadow witness, the investigating officer reached the office of the accused alongwith other members of the party. The DSP (investigating officer) introduced himself to the accused. Hands of the accused were dipped into the solution of sodium carbonate prepared in a glass of water. The colour of the solution turned red. The said solution was put in a nip which then was sealed and was taken in possession by the police. Four currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the accused, details of which tallied with details of currency notes in the pre-trap memo. The said currency notes were taken in possession by the investigating officer. Copy of Jamabandi was also taken in possession by the police. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Investigations were completed and on completion of investigations, report under Section 173 Cr.PC was finalised. Charge against the accused 3. On being charge-sheeted for commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Evidence of the prosecution 4. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. To sustain and support the charge against the accused, in addition to the complainant Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -4- (PW11), the prosecution had placed heavy reliance on deposition of shadow-witness Gurmukh Singh (PW9) and independent witness Harjit Singh (PW8). The investigating officer DSP Narinderpal Kaushal (PW13) was also examined to strengthen the prosecution case. Balbir Kaur (PW1) had proved sanction order (Ex.PA). Other witnesses are of formal nature and need not be discussed in detail. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC & defence evidence 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused took up a stand that he had already issued copy of Jamabandi to the complainant on 29.9.1999 as per entry in the relevant Register under signatures in token of its receipt. It is claimed that since copy of Jamabandi had already been supplied to the complainant, there was no question of demand of any bribe. To sustain his defence, the accused examined Jagtar Singh (DW1) and Malkiat Singh (DW2). Appraisal by the trial court 6. The trial court, in addition to the complainant (PW11), relied on the testimony of Harjit Singh (PW8), Gurmukh Singh, shadow witness (PW9) and DSP Vigilance Narinderpal Kaushal (PW13) and rejecting the defence version that when copy of Jamabandi had already been supplied and that then there was no question of demand of bribe, holding the accused guilty had convicted him and then order of sentence was passed. Grounds of appeal 7. The accused, impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has taken the following grounds in this appeal: i. Untrustworthy evidence of interested witnesses has been relied upon even though it did not inspire any confidence. Copy of Jamabandi was supplied to the Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -5- complainant on 29.9.1999. The signatures of the complainant were obtained in the relevant Register in token of having received the said copy of Jamabandi. As the task of supply of copy had already been completed on a day prior to the day of occurrence i.e. 29.9.1999, there was no occasion to demand or accept the bribe on 30.9.1999; ii. The shadow witness Gurmukh Singh (PW9) did not support the prosecution case; iii. Testimonies of Jagtar Singh (DW1) and Malkiat Singh (DW2) show that the accused was falsely implicated as the complainant was inimical to the accused; iv. The prosecution version is full of discrepancies and contradictions on material points; v. The recovery of tainted currency notes is from the drawers of the table and not from the possession of the accused; and, vi. The conviction awarded to the accused is based on mere surmises and conjectures. Thus, claiming the impugned judgment and order of sentence to be of no legal worth, acquittal for the appellant has been sought by way of acceptance of the appeal. Arguments of the parties-Rival claims 8. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the record. 8.1 Counsel for the appellant-accused has urged that not only testimony of Gurmukh Singh shadow witness (PW9) has been ignored but version of Jagtar Singh (DW1) and Malkiat Singh (DW2) who have categorically deposed that the prosecution had not brought true and genuine version but had wrongly implicated the accused in this litigation has also been bye-passed. It is urged that deposition of the prosecution witnesses is Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -6- full of discrepancies and contradictions making those worthy of no reliance but even then, the trial court had believed such hollow testimony of the witnesses. It is urged that when copy of requisite Jamabandi had already been supplied to the complainant before the trap was laid, there was neither any question of demand nor of acceptance of the bribe. 8.2 Countering these points raised by the appellant, the respondent side asserting correctness of the impugned judgment and order of sentence has claimed that straight and transparent facts brought into pointed notice in the impugned judgment and order of sentence have been tried to be twisted by the accused seeking acquittal for him. It is claimed that the prosecution case is not only truthful and straight forward but even otherwise is manifestation of unblemished and unsullied account of the version of the complainant punctuated by investigational stream of unpolluted waters. Asserting legality and binding nature of the impugned judgment and order of sentence, dismissal of the appeal has been sought. Charge against the accused 9. Before rival claims of the parties are adjudicated, evaluating facts and attending circumstances, it would be of avail to reproduce the charge which the prosecution was required to establish against the accused. Charge which is formal accusation against the accused, in the same language and style in which it was communicated to the accused on 23.8.2001 by the Special Judge, Patiala, is being reproduced as below: “That on 30.9.1999 in the area of Patran you being public servant in the revenue department posted as Patwari Halqa Hamjhari, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as such public servant obtained for yourself Rs.400/- from Chhajju Singh son of Jotan Singh resident of village Hamjhari, District Patiala for getting the copy of Jamabandi and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -7- Corruption Act readwith Section 13(2) of the said Act and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly on the abovesaid time and place you being public servant posted as Patwari directly demanded and accepted from Chhajju Singh a gratification of Rs.400/- other than your legal remuneration as a motive etc. for supplying him copy of Jamabandi and thereby you committed an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and within the cognizance of this Court.”. 10. Perusal of formal accusation against the accused reproduced as above reveals that it is a two headed charge. In the present day context, Rs.400/- which is described as the bribe amount, may appear to be very small but in the year 1999, the amount of bribe was not as insignificant as it appears today. Admitted facts 11. Appellant-accused Daljit Kumar was posted as Patwari in village Mantoli. Charge of Halqa Hamjhari in which area the land qua the complainant was located was also being handled by the accused. It is clear from report No.215 of 28.2.1997 (Ex.PF) which is based on orders of Naib Tehsildar, Patran. It has been proved by Sadar Kanungo Harmindr Singh (PW2) and Patwari Gurcharan Singh (PW6). Vide order (Ex.PB) of the District Revenue Officer, Patiala on the date of laying of trap by the Vigilance Bureau, he was on duty. He was official custodian of the revenue record and in the discharge of his official functions, he was to supply copies of revenue record as per procedure. Request for obtaining copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 of land in the name of Jotan Singh son of Krishan Singh of village Hamjhari had been received from complainant by the accused. Disputed facts 12. Whereas plea of the prosecution is that copy of Jamabandi was Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -8- not being supplied by the accused and demand of bribe of Rs.800/- which was reduced to Rs.400/- later, was made by the accused and only on payment of the same vide P. Powder laced currency notes Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 by the complainant, it was supplied by the accused on 30.9.1999 when in a trap laid by the Vigilance Bureau, the accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe and concomitantly delivering the requisite revenue record i.e. Jamabandi, while stand of the accused is that copy of Jamabandi had been supplied to the complainant on 29.9.1999 i.e. much earlier to the trap and thus, there was neither question of making of demand nor of acceptance thereof. In short, it is pleaded that case of the prosecution is false and fabricated against the accused. Defence version 13. If we go strictly by version of the accused, what emerges from his own mouth while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC when incriminating material emerging in evidence of the prosecution was put to him is being reproduced in his own language, as below: “I am innocent. I have never demanded any illegal gratification nor accepted the same. No recovery was effected from me. I have already issued the Jamabandi on 29.9.1999 and entry to this effect was made in the Roznamcha Wakiati at Sr. No.36. I have been falsely implicated in this case in connivance with officials of the Vigilance Department. Case is false.”. 14. In repudiation of the case of the prosecution and in a bid to cement his version, the accused had also examined two of his colleagues viz. Patwari Jagtar Singh and Patwari Malkiat Singh who had entered the witness box as DW1 and DW2.
15. Counsel for the appellant-accused has urged that merely because from drawer of the table of the accused in his office, four currency notes of Rs.100/- each had been found, no accusing finger could have been Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -9- raised against the accused. It is claimed that neither there is any evidence that the accused had accepted the said currency notes as bribe and had then placed in drawer of his table nor there was any evidence that any such bribe had ever been demanded by the accused. It is claimed that mere recovery of tainted currency notes from drawer of the official table of the accused ipso facto is no proof of acceptance of such money as bribe. Further discussion follows:
16. When we evaluate the evidence on record, we find the same to be overwhelmingly supportive of the charge against the accused as has been reproduced in earlier portion of this judgment.
17. There is unblemished, consistent and coherent deposition of the complainant (PW11) whereby not only demand of bribe raised by the accused is proved but even acceptance thereof on 30.9.1999 concomitantly with delivery of requisite copy of Jamabandi is also established.
18. The first ever proof of demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant to supply copy of Jamabandi sought by the accused, is prominently found in complaint Ex. PQ which was made by the complainant against the accused to the Vigilance Bureau. The complainant (PW11) not only is reiterative of averments in such complaint but also is assertive of his version therein even in the court, when he was subjected to grilling and lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Moving further, the complainant (PW11) has even explained the bold demand of bribe of Rs.400/- on 30.9.1999 when he had gone to the accused. On asking of the accused that only on payment of bribe of Rs.400/- by the complainant, he would be supplied copy of Jamabandi there and then the accused had gone there with shadow witness with full preparation. Version of the complainant (PW11) on this count is reproduced as given on the next page: Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -10- “I own 4/5 acres of land in village Hamjhari. The case was pending in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. I needed copy of Jamabandi in connection with said case. On 29.9.1999 I met Daljit Kumar accused present in the court who was working as Patwari at that time. I demanded copy of Jamabandi. Accused demanded Rs.800/- for issuance of said copy of Jamabandi. Ultimately the matter was settled for Rs.400/-. I narrated the said fact to Gurmukh Singh, who told that we should approach the Vigilance Department. I alongwith Gurmukh Singh came to office of Vigilance Bureau, Patiala on 30.9.1999 and met DSP Narinderpal Kaushal. I made by statement Ex.PQ which bears my signatures.”
. x x x “I alongwith Gurmukh Singh went to the office of accused Daljit Kumar present in the court. I demanded the copy of Jamabandi. The accused supplied copy of Jamabandi. Accused demanded Rs.400/- from me and I handed over Rs.400/- to the accused.”. 19. Even shadow witness Gurmukh Singh (PW9) in his statement recorded on 24.9.2003 has corroborated the version of complainant which is reproduced as below: “On 29.9.1999 Chhajju Singh of Hamjhari came to me, and told me that Daljit Singh is demanding money for issuance of copy of Jamabandi. He further disclosed that he has agreed to pay Rs.400/- in lieu of issuance of copy of Jamabandi. I told him that we should contact to Vigilance Department in this regard. On 30.9.1999 Chhajju Singh and myself came to office of Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. Chhajju Singh disclosed the whole facts to Narinder Kaushal, DSP. Statement of Chhajju Singh was recorded.”
. x x x “I alongwith Chhajju Singh reached the office of Daljit Kumar accused present in the court and the remaining police party stood nearby. Accused was present in his office. Chhajju Singh made request to accused that amount be taken and copy of Jamabandi be supplied. Chhajju Singh gave Rs.400/- to Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -11- Daljit Kumar accused present in the Court and accused gave copy of Jamabandi.”. 20. No doubt, Gurmukh Singh (PW9) having fully supported the prosecution version in his statement on 24.9.2003, had diluted its impact on 16.2.2004 when he was subjected to cross-examination by the defence but even then as noticed by the trial court, he could not completely efface the impact of his testimony. From co-joint reading of his statement made on 24.9.2003 and 16.2.2004, it leaves no manner of doubt that betraying oath of solemn affirmation administered to him on 16.2.2004, he had ventured to deviate from his sworn testimony of 24.9.2003 in order to distort it in a conscious bid to support the cause of the accused betraying and bartering away the cause of justice which he was legally bound to sustain. His plea that “he was pressurised and terrified by the Vigilance official who tutored (him) outside the court to make statement in the court as per their wish and (he) made the statement in the court accordingly”. is not worthy of acceptance. It is highly unbelievable that even standing in the court of law under an oath of solemn affirmation, when he was legally bound to disclose the truth, he was making his statement under some pressure or tutoring. The very fact that he has neither named any official who had allegedly put 'pressure' and had 'terrified' or 'tutored' him outside the court, is indicative of the fact that he has traded this accusation merely to save him from legal ignominy. Had his plea been genuine, while appearing in the witness box on 24.9.2003 instead of making deposition, as a vigilant witness as he had ventured to project himself on 16.2.2004, he was to bring this fact to the notice of the court and thus could have saved himself from alleged terror and pressure and should have helped the cause of justice. He did not do so. In fact, even when on 16.2.2004, he appeared in the witness box for his cross- examination and deposed substantially against his own statement made on 24.9.2003, he never gave reasons for the same and it was only when getting him declared hostile from the court (on request made in this behalf), the Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -12- prosecution had effected close and grilling cross-examination on him that such version has come from him. This part of his cross-examination by the defence leaves no manner of doubt that he sided with the accused leaving the path of truth to tread the path of falsehood instead in undertaking which journey he left the cause of justice battered, bruised and bleeding. He was to be proceeded against for perjury but no proceedings were conducted against him.
21. Even if version of this witness for a moment is kept aside, testimony of the complainant (PW11) in itself is so clear, categorical and cohesive regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused that no further support is required to sustain the charge against the accused.
22. At this stage, it is very necessary to deal with insinuations made against the complainant (PW11) by the defence.
23. It is claimed by the defence that neither the complainant was owner nor was in possession of any land in village Hamjhari and thus, story of his seeking copy of relevant revenue record i.e. Jamabandi, has no ground to stand. Though in view of clear acceptance of the case of the prosecution by the defence that copy of Jamabandi sought for by the complainant was supplied and then offering a defence that it had been supplied on a day prior to the trap, there, in fact, was no need to deal with this claim of the defence. But to be fair and not to leave anything of the defence unattended, this plea has also been taken up for discussion. The complainant (PW11) has very distinctly and unequivocally met this plea of the defence in the following words: “There was no land in my name during the alleged day of raid. There was no Khasra Girdawri in the cultivation column in the revenue record in my name in the year 1997, 1998 and 1999; there was no land in my name in village Hamjhari volunteered my father died in 1996, my uncle was old person Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -13- and on that account I was managing the property.”. 24. Though not articulated with full steam by the defence, it is claimed by the defence that the complainant was inimical towards the accused and to take revenge had falsely implicated him in this case. It is canvassed by the defence that Khasra Girdawri of land in question was changed by the accused to the disliking of the complaint, whereby a threat was held out on 27.9.1999 by the complainant to the accused that the accused was to face the consequences at the hands of the complainant for changing the Khasra Girdawri. Report No.33 (Ex.DA) in Roznamcha Wakiyati has been put in cross-examination of this witness. Entire version of the defence on this count has been denied in toto. Roznamcha Wakiyati is a record of possession of the accused. Its manipulation particularly when there is neither sufficient material nor evidence to presume that it was being maintained correctly and regularly in the due discharge of his official functions by the accused, its use for his personal use is not ruled out. Even for reasons best known to the accused, this plea in defence by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC is conspicuously missing. It is worth notice that without taking this plea in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused introduced this entry No.33 as Ex.DA in his defence version when he examined Patwari Jagtar Singh (DW1) who conceded that this entry was in the handwriting of the accused and had not been made in his presence. He also clarified that this entry notwithstanding being in writing of the accused, is not even signed by him. It is further clear from his statement that there is overwriting on the serial number of such entry leaving no manner of doubt that this entry was introduced by the accused later on at his convenience, when he was in the process of building up his possible defence. Sequelly, this has no probative value and is of no legal importance.
25. In addition to clean and clear version of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused emerging in statement of the complainant (PW11), Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -14- there is unabating support becoming available to the prosecution case from independent and neutral witness Harjeet Singh (PW8) who was then working as an accountant in the office of Nagar Panchayat, Lohia and was deputed to be associated in the raid when a request had been received from the Vigilance Bureau to spare some official to be associated in some secret vigilance work.
26. From the statement of Harjeet Singh (PW8), it is clear that it was only on his arrival in the office of DSP (Vigilance) that he had come to know of the complainant, shadow witness Gurmukh Singh and investigating officer Narinderpal Kaushal, DSP (Vigilance). He was explained the purpose of his arrival there, and then was joined in the proposed raid explaining to him the details thereof. His testimony in addition to being cohesive and coherent not only runs supportive of the case of the complainant disclosed in his complaint (Ex.PQ) is plain and positive that currency notes which in pre- trap proceedings had been smeared with P. Powder by the investigating officer and had then been handed over to the complainant to be further handed over to the accused on demand, had passed hands from the complainant to the accused and then were recovered from the possession of the accused, when those were found in drawer of his official table. Very fact that solution of sodium carbonate in plain water had turned pink when fingers of the hands of the accused on being dipped therein, shows that P. Powder treated currency notes had passed hands from the complainant to the accused. The solution was put in a separate nip and then was duly sealed. This nip of hand wash of the accused (Ex.P1) was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PH) in presence of PWs Gurmukh Singh and Harjeet Singh. Later, during investigations, it was sent to the FSL from where report (Ex.PS) was received, which unequivocally reveals that the said solution had traces of P. Powder.
27. Co-joint appraisal of report Ex.PS with memo Ex.PH reveals Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -15- that the currency notes had been handled by the accused. This scientific evidence lends support to the testimony of the complainant (PW11) to the effect that the currency notes (Ex.P2 to Ex.P5) of Rs.100/- each total amounting to Rs.400/- were handed over to the accused on demand and after receiving the same from the complainant, the accused had put these currency notes in the drawer of his official table. It is worth notice that copy of Jamabandi was found with the complainant and as per his deposition the same had been handed over to him in a quid pro quo fashion by the accused after receiving the bribe money (currency notes Ex.P2 to Ex.P5) on demand.
28. When this Jamabandi was taken in possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PN in presence of PWs Gurmukh Singh and Harjeet Singh, details of currency notes recovered from the accused were tallied with the details of currency notes in pre-trap memo (Ex.PO). Those currency notes were found to be the same, meaning thereby that the P. Powder treated currency notes which as per trap plan were to be handed over by the complainant to the accused, had actually been handed over by the complainant on demand as bribe and were accepted as such by the accused after receiving the same, he had took the same in his possession by placing the same safely in drawer of his table. Investigating Officer Narinderpal Kaushal (PW13) explaining each and every aspect of the investigational journey has vividly re-carpeted the road of said journey right from recording of complaint in the form of Statement Ex.PQ till finalisation of report under Section 173 Cr.PC. His testimony is specific about trap plan, actual laying of it and of spot investigations.
29. Castigating his testimony, defence has claimed that there were other Patwaris working in the same office and even across the road, there were shops of vegetable vendors but none was joined in the investigations. When the raiding party was having an independent and neutral witness in Harjeet Singh (PW8) and the trap had already been planned, its execution Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -16- could not have been aborted by the investigating officer merely to replan in a bid to re-organise the trap party. No adverse inference, thus, can be drawn against the testimony of investigating officer (PW13) individually or against the investigations conducted generally. Rather, it may be pointedly noticed that more the cross-examination became close, scrutinising and grilling on Harjeet Singh (PW8) and investigating officer (PW13), more transparently and brightly has emerged the case of the prosecution annihilating the stand of the defence. In fact, there is nothing with the defence to boast of as militating against the genuineness of the case of the prosecution.
30. Learned defence counsel has not been able to point out any discrepancies and contradictions which could be taken to possess the potency of unsaddling of the prosecution case. Variations in statements of the witnesses with regard to time of starting from the vigilance office to the spot or with regard to the time spent for spot investigations and concerning manner of conducting the same, cannot be construed to be tremorising the basic terra-firma of the prosecution case. Rather, existence of such variations here and there go to prove that the witnesses were deposing in a natural way and there was no element of tutoring. This aspect, thus, rather is supportive of the cause of the prosecution.
31. Main plank of the case of the defence that copy of Jamabandi had already been supplied to the complainant on 29.9.1999 i.e. a day prior to the laying the trap has rightly been adjudicated against the defence. It may be mentioned that defence had tried to take advantage of overwriting existing in mentioning the date of supply of copy of Jamabandi. At the same place where date as 30.9.1999 as the date of supply of Jamabandi is mentioned there was scribbling of date of 29.9.1999 as well. The defence had taken a plea that, in fact, copy of Jamabandi had been supplied to the complainant on 29.9.1999 and not on 30.9.1999 but to support and strengthen the raid, this date of 29.9.1999 was changed to 30.9.1999. Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -17- 32. The date of supply of copy of Jamabandi fortunately appears not at one but at more than one places. Though at one place, there is overwriting but at the other place, there is no such overwriting. It is clearly mentioned there that copy of Jamabandi was supplied on 30.9.1999. Thus, independent entry of delivery of copy of Jamabandi showing date of such delivery to be as 30.9.1999 leaves no manner of doubt that it was not on 29.9.1999 but on 30.9.1999 only that copy of Jamabandi was supplied to the complainant. From testimony of the complainant (PW11) supported and sustained by independent witness Harjeet Singh (PW8) and investigating officer (PW13), there is proof of the prosecution case. By now, there is no dispute that copy of Jamabandi was supplied at the time of raid itself on 30.9.1999 by the accused to the complainant only when he had received the bribe amount of Rs.400/- vide currency notes Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 and not before that.
33. Testimony of Patwari Jagtar Singh (DW1) and of Patwari Malkiat Singh (DW2) on this count being contrary to the written version of the entire matter of supply of copy is nothing but an afterthought and made up one and thus, had rightly been rejected by the trial court.
34. Sanction (Ex.PA) to prosecute the accused granted by the then Collector, Patiala has validly been proved by Smt. Balbir Kaur (PW1), an official of the said office, clearly deposing that after going through the challan papers and police file and on due application of mind by the Collector in respect of the same, the Collector had granted permission to prosecute the accused. Without disputing this fact, it was suggested to this witness that draft of sanction order was prepared by the witness and it was simply signed by the Collector but this suggestion was vehemently denied. Thus, there is no fault with regard to sanction order (Ex.PA) for prosecution against the accused and the same has rightly been proved. Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -18- 35. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, there is no infirmity either on facts or in law in the impugned judgment of conviction and the same is hereby affirmed.
36. So far as challenge to the order of sentence is concerned, stand of the appellant-accused is that he is a first offender and the recovery of illegal gratification is only of Rs.400/-.
37. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances as also the fact that the appellant is facing this litigation since the year 1999 and no digression of law from the accused has been reported during these years, when he had been undergoing the travail and trauma of these proceedings, the sentence awarded by Special Judge, Patiala vide impugned order of sentence dated 19.7.2004 being harsh is modified and reduced to the extent as mentioned below: Offence Sentence In default Under Section 7 of the RI for one year and fine RI for three months Act. of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 13(2) RI for one year and fine RI for three months of the Act of Rs.1,000/- 38. There would be no change in the findings of the trial court in remaining part of the impugned order of sentence.
39. Except for aforesaid modification in the impugned order of sentence, the appeal filed by appellant-accused Daljit Kumar is dismissed.
40. Per records, the accused was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal vide order dated 29.7.2004. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. The trial court is directed to comply with this Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-1465-SB of 2004 -19- order. The period for which the accused had remained in custody shall be set off. (Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge May 14, 2014 'Yag Dutt' 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Yes Yag Dutt 2014.05.26 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document