Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998
Date of decision : 12.9.2008
*****
Ravinder Kumar .....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General,Haryana.
*****
S. D. ANAND, J.
The appellant was convicted by the then learned Special
Judge, Jind for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) and sentenced as under:-
"Under Section 7 of To undergo rigorous
the Prevention of imprisonment for a period of two
Corruption Act, 1988 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/-. In default of payment
of fine to further undergo R.I. For
a period of six months.
“Under Section 13(2) To undergo rigorous
of the Prevention of imprisonment for a period of two
Corruption Act, 1988 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.3000/-. In default of payment
of fine to further undergo R.I. For
a period of six months.”
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -2-
***
The substantive sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
The prosecution allegations, upheld at the trial, were as
under:-
The appellant was posted as Assistant Manager at the
Safidon Branch of the State Bank of Patiala. In that capacity, he was
the recommending authority for sanction of (financial) limit. PW-8
Satish Kumar who was running a glass house at Safidon under the
name and style of M/s Vishal Glass House, Safidon, applied for the
sanction of ‘limit’ for furthering his business. In that context, Satish
Kumar met the appellant in the bank premises on 22.4.1995. The
appellant obtained the signatures of Satish Kumar on a blank
cheque, photocopy whereof is Ex. PE, on a representation that some
formalities were required to be completed in the context of pending
request of Satish Kumar PW for sanction of ‘limit’. On the basis of
the original of Ex. PE, the appellant withdrew a sum of Rs.10,000/-
from the loan account and directed Satish Kumar to meet him again
on 24.4.1995. When Satish Kumar went over to the appellant, on
that date, the latter demanded a illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- for
the grant and also disbursement of the loan amount aforementioned.
The appellant further informed Satish Kumar PW-8 that he had
withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 22.4.1995 on the basis of the
original of Ex. PE and that the amount afore-mentioned was to be
adjusted towards the amount permissible to be realised under the
‘limit’. When Satish Kumar told the appellant that he was not inclined
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -3-
***
to pay the amount of illegal gratification, the appellant did not allow
him to withdraw the amount from his loan account. Satish Kumar felt
frustrated, went to DSP, Safidon and filed an application (Ex. PF)
against the appellant. Under the direction of DSP, Safidon, PW-8
Satish Kumar made available currency notes of Rs.3500/- available.
When Satish Kumar approached DSP, Safidon, with that amount he
found that the DSP was available in the office and Sh. Inder Singh,
Tehsildar was also sitting with him at that point of time. In the
presence of PW-6 Inder Singh, PW-8 Satish Kumar handed over
currency notes of Rs.3500/- to DSP, Safidon. The amount handed
over included one currency note of the denomination of Rs.500/-
eleven currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and the remaining
thirty-eight currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination. The DSP noted
down the number of each currency note. Thereafter, the notes were
initialled by the DSP and the Tehsildar and phenolphthalein powder
was applied to the currency notes. The DSP, then, proceeded to
conduct the personal search of PW-8 Satish Kumar. That
transaction was documented vide memo Ex. PG, which was attested
by PW-6 Inder Singh, Tehsildar, PW-8 Satish Kumar and PW-9
Satbir Singh who had been summoned by Satish Kumar under the
direction of the DSP. A raiding party was formed. PW-9 Satbir
Singh was assigned the role of the shadow witness. PW-8 Satish
Kumar was directed to give the agreed signal after passing on the
amount to the appellant. The shadow witness was to further pass on
the agreed signal to the other members of the raiding party. PW-8
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -4-
***
Satish Kumar went inside the cabin of the appellant in the bank at
about 4.45 P.M. Shadow witness PW-9 Satbir Singh stationed
himself at a window near that cabin; while the other members of the
raiding party stayed over at a Panwala shop situated near the
premises afore-mentioned. Once he was inside the cabin, Satish
Kumar informed the appellant that he could pay up the illegal
gratification of only Rs.3500/-. The appellant insisted that he would
accept only the originally demanded amount of Rs.4000/- After a
haggling that lasted about 10-15 minutes, the appellant accepted
the currency notes of Rs.3500/- from Satish Kumar and put the same
in side a pocket of the bag lying on his table. On getting the agreed
signal from Satish Kumar, PW-9 Satbir Singh passed on the agreed
signal to the other members of the party which swooped upon the
appellant. Satish Kumar, on being queried by the Investigating
Officer about whether he had paid the amount of illegal gratification,
owned it up. After informing the appellant, that the party was inclined
to search the bag, the party proceeded to do so. The person of the
appellant, and also contents of the bag, were searched. Currency
noties of Rs.3500/- ( Ex. P5 to Ex. P54) were recovered from the bag
Ex. P4.
The hand wash of the accused was obtained in a jug.
The jug water was, thereafter, made into a sealed nip. Then, the
inside of pocket of the bag (Ex. P4) was also washed and the water
turned light pink. That wash was also put in a nip and was sealed
with that very seal. Thereafter, the currency notes were washed in
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -5-
***
that jug water which also turned light pink.
The prosecution examined PW-1 Rajinder Singh, PW-2
HC Ram Niwas, PW-3 Constable Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 S.S.Thind,
PW-5 M.L.Aggarwal, PW-6 Inder Singh, PW-7 S. Srinivasan, PW-8
Satish Kumar, PW-9 Satbir Singh, PW-10 ASI Daya Nand and PW-
11 H.K.Kalson, DSP in support of its plea at the trial.
The appellant raised a pure and simple plea of innocence
when he was examined in the course of the statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He alleged false implication by averring in that
statement as under:-
“I have been involved in this fase case because Satish
Kumar was annoyed with me on account of my telling him
that stocks were insufficient for recommending the loan of
Rs.85000/- and he had to manage the stocks by
purchase or by loan and as such he managed to secure
the services for obliging DSP.”
The appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.
Learned Trial Judge placed implicit reliance upon the
prosecution presentation, declined appellant’s plea of innocence and
proceeded to record the impugned finding of conviction( and order
on point of sentence).
The appellant is in appeal before this Court.
I have heard Dr. Surya Parkash, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.S.MOr, learned
Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and have carefully gone
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -6-
***
through the file.
Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following
items of grievance in support of his plea for invalidation of the
impugned finding of conviction:-
1) There is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the
recovery of tainted currency notes was effected
from the person of the appellant;
2) The prosecution presentation does not inspire
confidence inasmuch as it is not supported by the
testimony of an independent witness;
3) The prosecution presentation is not free from doubt
in view of the fact that there is no evidence to prove
that the sample seal/seal impression were
deposited with the MHC and/or were forwarded to
the FSL. In the absence of that evidence, the
argument proceeded, would prove that the
prosecution had not been able to prove the
intactness of the case property ( hand wash, bag
wash and currency notes wash till analysis thereof
by the FSL). In that very context, learned counsel
found fault with the FSL report as well by pointing
out that one of the sealed nips purporting to
contain the bag wash was described by the FSL
as “some dirty solution with sediments approx. 50
ml. Stated to be “bag-wash”.
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -7-
***
The pleas advocated on behalf of the appellant do not
merit acceptance. The reasons therefor are indicated as under:-
The grievance indicated at item no. 1 is neither here nor
there. Infact, it was no where the prosecution presentation that the
appellant had put the currency notes into his pocket. The very
allegation by the prosecution was that the appellant, after receiving
the tainted money, put the same inside the pocket of a bag which
was lying near him. The fact that it was the appellant who received
the tainted money was proved by the testimony on oath of Satish
Kumar PWE-8 The result of the hand wash, bag wash and
currency notes wash was all confirmed that fact.
In the face of the advancement of the case law and the
awareness on the part of the citizenry in the relevant behalf, the
corrupt public servants have been found to have displayed rare
sense of ingenuity. There are a number of cases in which it is found
that the corrupt public servant would require the tainted money to be
put in side the drawer of his table or under a file which may be lying
upon the table. That ingenuity is aimed at disproving the
prosecution presentation that the corrupt public servant had himself
accepted the tainted money. Ofcourse, the Courts have been
aborting such acts of ingenuity by recording a finding in the given
circumstances of a particular case that the tainted money had, infact,
been received by the corrupt public servant and it could not wriggle
out of accountability in the relevant behalf just by adducing evidence
to the effect that money had not been recovered from his person and
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -8-
***
that the money had been recovered from elsewhere. In this case
too, the appellant appears to have displayed a touch of ingenuity in
having received the tainted money which he put into the side pocket
of a bag. This aspect has to be appreciated in view of the result of
hand wash, bag wash and currency notes wash. The plea shall
stand negatived accordingly.
Insofar as the defence offered by the appellant is
concerned, it is plainly brittle. If there was even an iota of truth in the
plea taken up by the appellant in the course of statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., there is no reason why he would not have
adduced evidence to prove that he did make a report to the
competent authority that the stocks available with the complainant,
as security for the ‘limit’ applied for by him, were in adequate or
deficit. It is only on proof of that fact that he could be allowed to
urge motive on the part of the first informant/complainant to falsely
implicate him.
Apart from the above noticed items of grievance, at the
hands of learned counsel for the appellant, he also argued that there
is no reason why the first informant would have agreed to pay the
amount of illegal gratification to the appellant because the latter was
not the sanctioning authority and his role was only that of a
recommending authority. “The plea is too feeble to be accepted. A
common man, particularly a business man in need of funds, would
not be in the know of the fact about who exactly is the sanctioning
authority. Even if the first informant is inferred to have had notice of
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -9-
***
that fact, it is not even denied on behalf of the appellant that he was
the recommending authority which would, obviously, have a pivotal
role to play in the sanction of ‘limit’. The plea shall stand negatived
accordingly.
The other count of grievance ( with regard to non-joining
of independent witness) is also illogical. No doubt PW-9 Satbir
Singh conceded that he is a first cousin of Satish Kumar PW-8, his
testimony does not attract the tag of a biased witness. It is matter of
common observation that the members of public are reluctant to
associate themselves, with a such like exercise. It may be on
account of fear of reprisal at the hands of an accused or it could be
on account of the obvious “I do not care’ attitude of the citizenry.
The statement that public witness avoid association with the police
investigation in order to avoid harassment on account of repeated
visits to the police station and the Courts is also not far from truth. In
that prevalent scenario, there is nothing unnatural if only an
acquaintance would assist investigating agency in the matter. The
reliance placed by the learned counsel upon G.V.Nanjundiah Vs.
State (Delhi Administration) 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases
266 is misconceived. In that case, the Investigating Officer had
associated two trap witnesses. One out of them had already joined
the police exercise 3-4 times. The other was a colleague of that
witness. It was under those circumstances that the Apex court held
that none of them could be termed as independent witness. In the
present case, however, there is no averment that PW-9 Satbir Singh
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -10-
***
had any prior connection with the police. In that view of things, I
have no hesitation in discarding the appellant’s plea tarring Satbir
Singh PW-9 to be a man of biased character.
In support of the last indicated item of grievance, the
learned counsel placed on State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal (1998) 8
Supreme Court Cases 449.
The reliance placed upon that judicial pronouncement is
thoroughly misconceived. That was a case under the NDPS Act. In
such type of cases, there is certain amount of compulsive sanctity
attached to sealing of the case property. Even otherwise, the plea
advocated is oblivious of the fact that the FSL noticed in the report
itself that “the seals were intact and tallied with the sample seal as
per forwarding authority’s letter.”
In that view of things, I have no hesitation in negativing
the relevant plea put forward on behalf of the appellant.
Insofar as the other part of the last indicated item of
grievance is concerned, it too is without any force. The FSL
recorded a categorical finding that Sodium carbonate and
phenolphthalein were detected in exhibit-1, 2 and 3 and that
phenolphthalein was detected in exhibits 4 and 5. Even at the cost of
repetition, it may be noticed here that Exhibits 1,2 and 3 purported
to be hand wash, bag wash and currency notes wash respectively.
Item No. 4 was rexion bag itself and item no. 5 was a sealed parcel
containing the currency notes. The appellant, cannot, thus, draw any
sustenance from the FSL report to indicate a case for exoneration
Criminal Appeal No.627-SB of 1998 -11-
***
from liability.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the appeal is held
to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed.
September 12, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE