Tarlok Singh v. State Pf Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.:— This appeal has been filed by Tarlok Singh, Line Superintendent of the Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment and order dated 30th April, 1981 of the Special Judge, Gurdaspur convicting him under sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrupt on Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 161 Indian Penal Code. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently

2. The facts of this case are that the complainant Beant Singh had been allotted electric connection at Sr. 119 in the list of seniority. He came to know that connections had already been given to other persons upto serial No. 164 in the said list. He, therefore, approached the appellant on 5th September, 1979 and requested him to release the connection in his favour also. The appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- to do this job. Beant Singh promised to pay the bribe money on the following day. As he had no intention to pay the money demanded by the appellant, therefore on 6th September, 1979, he conected Shri Jaswant Singh, Inspector Vigilance at Gurdaspur who recorded his statement Exhibit PC on the basis Page: 383of which a formal First Information Report was recorded. Sukhpal Singh (PW. 7) was also present at that time. Beant Singh produced five currency notes (Exhibits P. 1 to P. 5) of the denomination of Rs. 20/- each which were initialled by the Inspector who applied the phenolphthalein powder thereto and returned the same to Beant Singh after noting their serial numbers in the Memo Ex. PJ. Sukhpal Singh PW was deputed as a shadow witness. Beant Singh and Sukhpal Singh accordingly went to the office of the appellant followed by the police party. The appellant inquired from Beant Singh if he had brought the bribe money of Rs. 100/- to which Beant Singh replied in the affirmative. The appellant took Beant Singh to his residence which was quite close to his office and there in front of the house, Beant Singh handed over the currency notes to the appellant who put the same in his Bushirt pocket and then entered his residence saying that he would return in a short while. When the appellant emerged from his house, Sukh Pal Singh PW shadow gave the agreed signal in pursuance of which Inspector Jaswart Singh accompanied by two constables reached the spot. He disclosed his identity to the appellant and joined three independent witnesses namely Shargara Sirgh, Subhash and Prem Singh and in their presence, searched the person of the appellant. Although Rs. 120/- in cash and an identity card were recovered from the hip pocket of the appellant, but the bribe money was not found. The Inspector Vigilance thereupon interrogated the appellant regarding the bribe money and he disclosed having kept the same concealed in his papers in the almirah in his residence and offered to get the same recovered.

3. In pursuance of the disclosure statement the appellant got recovered the currency notes Exhibits P. 1 to P. 5. The Inspector found that the serial numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers already noted by him in the memo Ex. P.J and so he took the same in possession vide memo Exhibit P.O The Inspector also conducted the colour test on hards and the bushirt pocket of the appellant by preparing a solution of sodium carbonate in water and found that the hands of the appellant as well as the pocket of the bushirt tuned pink showing thereby that he had handled the currency notes and had put the same in the bushirst pocket. The appellant was arrested and eventually prosecuted.

4. The appellant in his statement under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case by Beant Singh because he had not complied with the request of Beant Singh to give him the electric connection immediately out of turn. He further stated that previously. Beant Singh had obtained a temporary connection on 14th May, 1979 which was disconnected on 23rd May, 1979 but even after the disconnection, Beant Sirgh was using the electricity without any authority by connecting the wires with the pole and the appellant had got these wires disconnected and had also reported against him to the Sub-Divisional Officer. The appellant submitted that regular connection had been given to Beant Singh on 20th August, 1979 and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to demand the bribe of Rs. 100/- from Beant Singh on 5th September, 1979 for giving a connection which had already been given. The appellant produced some documentary evidence in defence to prove this contention.

5. Without going into the merits of the defence version it is imperative to hold that the prosecution has hot been able to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant from Beant Singh to the satisfaction of this Court. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration , 1974 Chandigarh Law Reporter 611, that trap witnesses in a case under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being concerned in success Page: 384of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting the accused. To the same effect are the precedents of this Court in Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab 1976 Chandigarh Law Reporter 366 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Chandigirh Law Reporter 93. In these cases it has been authoritatively held that no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimoney of trap witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration because the trap witnesses are interested and partisan witnessess and on that account, they spring from a tainted source. This being the parties of law. I fined that these ingredients have not been satisfied in the instant case. The prosecution had to prove that the appellant had actually demanded the bribe money from Bcant Singh and that after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant, it was recovered from his possession. According to the prosecution story, no one else was present when the appellant had demanded the bribe money from Beant Singh for the first time on 5th September, 1919. The statement of Beant Singh alone in this respect cannot be safely relied upon. Second time when Beant Singh along with Sukhpal Singh shadow witness had gone to the office of the appellant on 6th Septeber, 1979, the appellant is said to have demanded the bribe money from Beant Singh which was paid to him by the latter. However, this fact is only stated by Beant Singh PW and it is not corroborated by Sukhpal Singh (PW. 7). The latter categorically stated the appellant never demanded the bribe money from Beant Singh in his presence. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. The position taken up by him however, could not be shaken. The appropriate evidence is, therefore, lacking in this case to prove that the appellant had actually demanded the bribe money from Beant Singh Simply on the statement of Beant Singh, this allegation cannot be considered proved.

6. The recovery of the bribe money from the possession of the appellant is also not supported by any independent witness. It is said that the Vigilance Inspector Jaswant Singh had joined three independent witnesses namely Shangara Singh, Subhash and Prem Singh when the bribe money was recovered from the almirah of the appellant in pursuance of his disclosure statement, but Shangara Singh and Subhash were given by the prosecution and Prem Singh, who was examined as P.W 9, did not suppot the prosecution case. He never stated that the appellant had got recovered the bribe money in pursuance his disclosure statement in his presence. All that he has stated is that he was told that the appellant had taken a bribe of Rs. 100/- and that he should sign the relevent memo of recovery. This witness was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but to no effect.

7. It is, therefore, clear that in the present case, there is no independent evidence to establish that the appellant had demanded any bribe money from Beant Singh or that such money was recovered at the instance of the appellant. There being no inderendart corroboration to the statements of the complainant Beant Singh and the Investigating Officer, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The result is that this appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are set aside and the appellant is acquitted.