H.S Bedi, J. — Ramesh Chander, accused was working as a Superintendent in the Markfed Branch, Kapurthala. Charanjit Singh (PW-1), the complainant, was an ex-employee of the said office, who had been dismissed from service. Some of the amounts due to Charanjit Singh had been paid to him but certain amounts remained to be paid. He accordingly approached Ramesh Chander and asked for his intervention to secure the balance amount. On 22.12.1993, Ramesh Chander told the complainant that he had been transferred from his post and would be leaving charge within 2-3 days and that he (Charanjit Singh) should pay Rs. 1,000/- to him so that he could persuade his successor for securing the clearance of the arrears, failing which he would create obstacles in his way. Charanjit Singh, however, expressed his inability to pay Rs. 1,000/- and the bargain was struck at Rs. 700/-. Charanjit Singh, however, went to the Vigilance Office and reported the matter to Inspector Sukhwinder Singh (PW-5), who recorded Charanjit Singh's statement, Exh. PA. He then handed over seven currency notes to Inspector Sukhwinder Singh, who after noting down the numbers of the notes in the memo, Exh. PB, and sprinkling them with phenolphthalein power, returned them to Charanjit Singh with a direction as to how the trap was to be set up. Kanwaljit Singh (PW-2) was directed to accompany Charanjit Singh as a shadow witness and he was instructed to give a signal after the money had been handed over to the accused on his demand. An FIR. Exh. PA-2, was also registered in the police station. One Sodhi Ram from the office of the B.D.O was also associated as a witness. After the money had been handed over to the accused, Kanwaljit Singh PW gave a signal and the raid was carried out and the tainted money was recovered from the pocket of the accused in the presence of Sh. K.S Walia PW-4, the General Manager of the Markfed. The hands of the accused were also washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and the same turned pink. It was also found that the number of the currency notes, Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-7, tallied with the numbers noted in the memo, Exh. PB, prepared by Inspector Sukhwinder Singh. The accused was accordingly arrested and was sent up for trial for offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial.
2. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1, Charanjit Singh, the complainant; PW-2 Kanwaljit Singh, the shadow witness, who turned hostile; PW-4 Sh. K.S Walia, the General Manager of the Markfed, who proved the recovery of the currency notes from the accused; and PW-5 Inspector Sukhwinder Singh, the Investigating Officer, Sodhi Ram was, however, not examined.
3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that Charanjit Singh had earlier been working with him as Peon and on account of an inquiry initiated at his instance, he had been dismissed from service and as on the date in question, all the arrears had been paid to him, the question of payment of any balance amount did not arise. He also examined three witnesses in defence, they being, DW-1 Manohar Lal, DW-2 Ashwani Kumar and DW-3 Naval Kishore.
4. The trial Court held that the fact that Kanwaljit Singh (PW-2), a shadow witness having turned hostile and Sodhi Ram having not been examined, did not, in any way, prejudice the prosecution story as it was fully supported by the evidence of Charanjit Singh (PW-1), Sh. K.S Walia (PW-4), the General Manager of the Markfed and Inspector Sukhwinder Singh (PW-5). The trial Court also held that the stand of the accused that no amount was pending with respect to Charanjit's claim was incorrect as an objection with regard to Rs. 19,600/- had been raised on 20.10.1993 and the matter had been referred to the Head Office for clearance. The Court also held that the employees of the Markfed were subjected to trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act and having held as above, convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
5. Mr. H.S Riar, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, has pointed out that the evidence of Charanjit Singh (PW-1) could not be relied upon as he had admittedly strained relations with the appellant and in the light of the fact that Kanwaljit Singh (PW-2) had not supported the prosecution story and Sodhi Ram had not been cited as a witness, there was no credible evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. He has in this connection cited Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State Of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1191; The State of Punjab v. Rattan Singh, 1992 (2) SLJ 1291 and Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (1) RCR (Criminal) 487 to contend that the shadow witness having not supported the prosecution, the evidence of the complainant alone could not sustain or justify a conviction. He has also urged that Sh. K.S Walia (PW-4) was not a member of the raiding party and had been called after the arrest of the appellant and as his name had not figured in the supplementary statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded on the relevant date and in the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C, there was no reason as to why this witness too should be believed.
6. Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, the learned State counsel has, however, supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and has pointed out that there was absolutely no reason as to why the complainant Charanjit Singh would involve the appellants in a false case or that Sh. K.S Walia (PW-4), a senior officer would support a false story. He has also pointed out that in the light of the fact that the money had been recovered from the trouser pocket of the appellant, a fact which had not been denied, a presumption was raised that he was guilty of having accepting the illegal gratification. Reliance for this argument has been placed on T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 784.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. It is the admitted position that the accused to some extent was responsible for Charan Singh's dismissal from service and Charanjit Singh was candid enough to say that he bore a grudge against the appellant. It has, however, been argued by Mr. Riar that as a matter of fact, it was clear from the evidence of DW-1 Manohar Lal, a clerk from the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, that all the amounts had been released to Charanjit Singh on 1.11.1993 and as such the very basis for the demand and the trap was missing. This argument is not entirely accurate as the evidence of this witness is that he had no knowledge of the dues of pay etc. pending on 23.12.1993 and his evidence pertained to the clearance of the provident fund. It appears that a sum of Rs. 19,600/- had been due to Charanjit Singh and on an objection raised with regard to this payment, the matter had been referred to the Head Office for further action and it was this amount that Charanjit Singh was now keen to recover.
9. It is true that Kanwaljit Singh (PW-2) and Sodhi Ram did not come forward to support the prosecution case. I, however, find no reason as to why Sh. K.S Walia (PW-4) should not be believed. Admittedly, Sh. Walia was the General Manager of the Markfed at the relevant time and Ramesh Chander was working as a Superintendent in his office. Sh. Walia stated that he had been called by the officials of the Vigilance Department to the room of the appellant and seven currency notes had been recovered from his trouser pocket, which were taken into possession and that the hands of the appellant had been washed in a solution of sodium carbonate, turning of pink indicating that the appellant had handled the notes. Mr. Riar has, however, argued that Sh. Walia had given his statement under the influence of Charanjit Singh. I find no merit in this plea. Admittedly Charanjit Singh was a dismissed Peon from the office of the Markfed whereas Sh. Walia was the General Manager, a very senior officer. To say, therefore, that he was under the influence of Charanjit Singh is not acceptable.
10. I have also gone through the judgments cited by Mr. Riar and am of the opinion that they must be read in the context of their own facts. It has repeatedly been held that it is often very difficult to get independent witnesses in such matters and the prosecution must be necessity have to fall back on the evidence of the complainant, the official witnesses and the circumstantial evidence as held in T. Shankar Prasad's case (supra). In the present case, in addition to Charanjit Singh's evidence, we have the unimpeachable evidence of Sh. K.S Walia (PW-4) and the circumstantial evidence of the recovery of currency notes from the trouser pocket of the appellant and his hand wash having turned pink, which shows that he had handled the money.
11. I am, however, of the opinion that the sentence imposed on the appellant is slightly on the higher side.
12. This appeal is accordingly dismissed but the sentence is reduced from four to two years rigorous imprisonment; the other parts of the sentence being maintained as it is.
Appeal dismissed.
Comments