Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • For the Appellant :- Mr. H.S. Gill
  • Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hari Chand
  • Advocate. For the Respondent :- Mr. Prem Kumar
  • DAG
  • Punjab.
Judges
  • K.C Gupta, J.
Acts
  • Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act),
  • Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.20.
  • Section 313 Cr.P.C,
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • For the Appellant :- Mr. H.S. Gill
  • Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hari Chand
  • Advocate. For the Respondent :- Mr. Prem Kumar
  • DAG
  • Punjab.
Judges
  • K.C Gupta, J.
Acts
  • Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act),
  • Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.20.
  • Section 313 Cr.P.C,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Legal Opinion Summary — Sarwan Singh (Appeal from conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was filed by the appellant, Sarwan Singh, against the judgment and order dated 5.1.1995 of the Special Judge, Kapurthala, by which he was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years with fines (two concurrent sentences: each 2 years RI and Rs. 500; default one month RI for each fine). The appeal challenges that conviction and sentence.

The underlying facts (as set out in the trial record) are: on 21–22 March 1994 the appellant, posted as Revenue Patwari at Village Khiranwali, was alleged to have demanded an illegal gratification for supplying copies of Khasra Girdawari to PW-2 Bawa Singh (Lambardar), who purportedly needed the document to satisfy bank requirements for a loan. The amount negotiated was Rs. 500 (initial demand Rs. 700). Bawa Singh decided to approach the Vigilance Department; DSP Amrik Singh arranged a sting operation with marked currency (phenolphthalein test), a shadow witness (PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh) and other police personnel. During the raid the DSP alleged recovery of five marked notes from the appellant's bu-shirt pocket, and the bu-shirt and solutions were sealed as exhibits. A challan was presented, and the appellant was charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Prosecution examined five witnesses and produced forensic and other documentary evidence; defence called four witnesses and the appellant denied the charges under Section 313 Cr.P.C., pleading false implication.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe (i.e., the factum of demand and acceptance) as required for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
  2. Whether the testimony of the giver of the bribe and the shadow witness was independently corroborated such that a conviction could be sustained.
  3. Whether the recovery of marked currency and related physical exhibits, without independent evidence of demand or of supply of the alleged official document, sufficed to convict the appellant.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved that a copy of the Khasra Girdawari was actually supplied by the appellant (i.e., whether there was evidence of supply, such as entries in a register).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The appellant denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.
  • He asserted a motive for false implication: PW-2 Bawa Singh allegedly belonged to a politically opposite party and purportedly sought to involve the appellant to prevent the appellant's marriage being solemnized soon after the alleged occurrence.
  • Defence witnesses stated that the appellant did not demand any bribe, and that police personnel had forcibly tried to thrust money into the appellant's pocket during the raid.
  • Defence highlighted inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses and argued lack of independent corroboration for the crucial elements of demand and acceptance.

Prosecution's Arguments

  • Prosecution relied on the narrative given by PW-2 (the alleged giver), PW-5 (DSP Amrik Singh) and other police witnesses that marked notes were handed over and recovered from the appellant's bu-shirt pocket after the phenolphthalein test and raid.
  • Prosecution tendered forensic report and seizure memos (various exhibits) and contended that recovery of the marked currency and sealed exhibits supported the charge of demand and acceptance.
  • Prosecution relied on the shadow witness (PW-4) to corroborate the staged delivery and signal, and on the DSP's conduct of the sting operation to establish guilt. (The written opinion records these prosecution positions as the basis of the trial case.)

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993 (3) RCR 450 Authority cited in support of the proposition that independent corroboration of the testimony of the giver (and related witnesses) is required before convicting an accused in bribery matters. The court accepted the general principle relied upon by defence that corroboration is required; it considered this authority as part of the legal background for requiring independent corroboration of PW-2's testimony.
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 295 Held that the giver of a bribe is typically treated as an accomplice and that independent corroboration of accomplice testimony (complainant and shadow witness) is normally required before convicting. The court applied this principle to evaluate PW-2 and PW-4, treating them as potentially accomplice witnesses and noting the need for independent corroboration which was found lacking.
Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, JT 2002 (4) SC 348 : 2003 (2) RCR (Cr.) 541 (SC) Stated that in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of gratification, an accused cannot be convicted under the relevant provision (noted specifically for Section 13(1)(d) in the cited passage). The court relied on this apex-court authority to underscore that mere recovery of money, without independent evidence of demand and acceptance, is insufficient for conviction; the observation was applied to set aside the conviction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a focused assessment of the testimony and documentary material presented at trial, applying legal principles on corroboration and the role of accomplice/giver-of-bribe testimony.

  1. Evaluation of the shadow witness (PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh): The court found PW-4 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile; his cross-examination admissions included that he did not see PW-2 hand over the notes to the appellant, that he did not know PW-2, and that when the DSP entered the appellant's office several other persons were present. The court considered these discrepancies significant and concluded PW-4 was not a reliable independent shadow witness and appeared to be a procured witness.
  2. Assessment of PW-2 (Bawa Singh): Although PW-2 asserted that the appellant demanded Rs. 500 and that those notes (later marked) were placed into the appellant's bu-shirt pocket, the court identified material inconsistencies in PW-2's account. Notably, PW-2 had stated in his police statement that he had opened a bank account but admitted in court he had not done so; the court treated this as undermining the credibility of PW-2's narrative about the bank loan and the need for Khasra Girdawari copies. The court also observed the absence of local persons being called by the DSP to corroborate the events.
  3. Consideration of defence evidence: Defence witnesses (DW-1, DW-2, DW-3, DW-4) gave versions that contradicted the prosecution: DW-2 said police tried to thrust money into the appellant's pocket and that no demand for money was made in his presence; DW-1 and others stated that copies were being issued to others and not to PW-2 on the relevant date. The court treated these statements as weighing against the prosecution's account.
  4. On the physical evidence: The court accepted that marked currency notes were recovered from the appellant's bu-shirt pocket and that phenolphthalein tests and sealed exhibits were produced. However, the court emphasized that mere recovery of money, even if marked, does not conclusively establish demand and acceptance by itself. The court noted the prosecution's failure to show entries in the register or to take possession of a register that would demonstrate that a copy of the Khasra Girdawari was supplied.
  5. Application of legal principles and precedents: Citing authorities (Gurcharan Singh, Dharam Pal and Subash Parbat Sonvane), the court reiterated that the giver of a bribe is to be treated as an accomplice and that independent corroboration is normally required. The court applied the principle from Subash Parbat Sonvane that absence of proof of demand and acceptance precludes a conviction under the relevant provisions. Given the contradictions and lack of independent corroborative evidence, the court concluded the prosecution had not established the essential elements beyond reasonable doubt.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges; the conviction and sentences recorded by the Special Judge, Kapurthala on 5.1.1995 are set aside.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The appellant, Sarwan Singh, is acquitted and the earlier conviction and sentences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are reversed.
  • Reasoning-based outcome: The court based the acquittal on witness inconsistencies, the unreliability of the shadow witness, the absence of independent corroboration for the critical facts of demand and acceptance, and on authoritative precedent that recovery of money alone does not substitute for proof of demand and acceptance.
  • Precedential effect: The judgment applies established principles from earlier authorities concerning corroboration and the treatment of the giver of bribe as an accomplice; the court did not purport to lay down a new legal principle beyond the application of those precedents.

Appeal allowed.

Show full summary ...

    Sarwan Singh v. State Of Punjab

    K.C Gupta, J. — This appeal has been instituted by Sarwan Singh against judgment and order dated 5.1.1995 passed by Special Judge, Kapurthala, whereby he was found guilty and convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), and sentenced to RI for two years and a fine of Rs 500/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month under Section 7 of the Act; 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month under Section 13(2) of the Act. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

    2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 21.3.1994, the appellant, Sarwan Singh, was posted as Revenue Patwari in Village Khiranwali. PW-2 Bawa Singh, Lambardar, resident of Village Khera Bet had opened an account in Punjab and Sind Bank, Surakhpur, District Kapurthala, in order to enhance the limit of fertilizer loan and as per instructions of the bank authorities, he was to mortgage 8 kanals of land. For this purpose, he was required by the Manager of the Bank to produce copies of Khasra Girdawaris of land measuring 40 Kanals, including 8 Kanals of land under his ownership showing his cultivation.

    3. On 21.3.1994, PW-2 Bawa Singh met the appellant in his office at Kapurthala and told him to prepare the copies of the Khasra Girdawaris. However, the appellant demanded Rs. 700/- as illegal gratification for supplying copies of the Khasra Girdawaris. PW-2 Bawa Singh expressed his inability to pay Rs. 700/- and ultimately, the deal was struck at Rs. 500/- and Bawa Singh promised to pay the said amount of 22.3.1994

    4. In fact, PW-2 Bawa Singh did not want to pay the amount, so, he decided to approach the Vigilance Department. For this purpose, he was going to Kapurthala on 22.3.1994 and near Police State Kotwali, PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh met him. He took Sukhwinder Singh alongwith him and went to the office of DSP, Vigilance, Kapurthala, and told the whole occurrence to him. PW-2 Bawa Singh handed over five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to DSP Amrik Singh, who, in turn recorded the statement of PW-2 Bawa Singh, Ex. PD. PW-5 DSP Amrik Singh noted down the numbers of currency notes in a memo and handed over the same to Bawa Singh after applying phenolphthelein powder. He directed PW-2 Bawa Singh to hand over the said amount to the appellant on demand. PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh was detailed to accompany Bawa Singh to the office of the appellant and to give signal to the police party by raising his hand on the head after the deal was struck. PW-5 DSP Amrik Singh also gave demonstration about the effectiveness of the phenolphthelein powder. He got arranged a glass of water, mixed therein carbonate and the colour of the water did not change. Thereafter, he applied phenolphthelein powder on a piece of paper and dipped the same into the glass and the colour of water became light pink. The said solution was thrown out.

    5. PW-5 Amrik Singh, DSP made endorsement on the statement of PW-2 Bawa Singh and sent it to the Police State Kotwali for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex.PD/2 was recorded. Thereafter the DSP summoned PW-3 Vishva Nath, Junior Engineer, of the office of Executive Engineer, Kapurthala, and joined him in the raiding party. They all went in a jeep towards the office of the appellant. Bawa Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were dropped near the office of the appellant. On demand by the appellant, PW-2 Bawa Singh handed over the five tainted currency notes, which he put into the pocket of his bu-shirt.

    6. Upon receipt of the arranged signal from PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh, DSP accompanied by Vishva Nath and other police officials went to the spot. The DSP disclosed his identity and secured the appellant. A glass of water was arranged and sodium carbonate powder was put into it and the colour of the water did not change. Then the appellant was asked to dip his hands in the solution and the colour of the water became light pink. The said solution was transferred into a nip, which was sealed by the DSP with his seal ‘AS’ and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC attested by the witnesses.

    7. PW-5 DSP Amrik Singh took the search of the appellant and from the front pocket of the bu-shirt of the appellant, cunency notes, Exs.P1 to P5 were recovered. The numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers noted down in the memo. The same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH The bu-shirt of the appellant was got removed and it was again put in the solution of water and sodium carbonate and the colour of the solution became light pink. That solution was collected in another nip and was sealed with the seal of ‘AS’. Bu-shirt, Ex.P6, was made into a sealed parcel and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK attested by the witnesses.

    On further search of the appellant, a purse containing cash amount of Rs. 350/-, an identity card and wrist watch were recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ, attested by the witnesses. PW-2 Bawa Singh produced copy of Khasra Girdawari, Ex.PR, before the DSP, which was also taken into possession. PW-5 DSP Amrik Singh prepared rough site plan, Ex.PS of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Both the nips with seals intact and other case property were deposited with Sukhdev Singh MHC. The appellant was arrested and after obtaining necessary sanction from the District Collector, Kapurthala, he was prosecuted.

    8. On presenting the challan, the appellant was charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

    9. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses and also tendered in evidence report of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex.PT, affidavits of Sukhdev Singh, MHC and Malkiat Singh Constable, Ex.PY and Ex.PV respectively.

    10. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. He next stated that PW-2 Bawa Singh belonged to his village and was member of the party opposite to him. The date of his marriage had been fixed which was to be solemnized after about ten days of the alleged occurrence and got him involved in a false case, so that he could not solemnize the marriage.

    11. In defence, he examined DW-1 Gulzar Singh, Patwari, DW-2 Darshan Singh, DW-3 Amarjit Singh, Inspector, Food and Supplies and DW-4 Swaran Singh son of Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of Village Khera Bet.

    12. DW-1 Gulzar Singh stated that he and the appellant used to sit together in the same office and on 22.3.1994, he had issued copy of the Jamabandi and copies of the entries of Khasra Girdawari in favour of Darshan and no copy of issued to Bawa Singh on that day. DW-2 Darshan Singh also stated that on 22.3.1994 he had approached the Revenue Patwari of his Halqa to obtain copy of the Jamabandi and the appellant was also present there. He further stated that the police officials had forcibly tried to thrust money in the pocket of the appellant and he did not demand any money from anybody. DW-3 Amarjit Singh, Inspector, stated that PW-2 Bawa Singh belonged to Village Khiranwali and on the application of Bawa, Singh he had issued Ration Card on 30.7.1991 DW-4 Swaran Singh, Sarpanch of Village Khera Bet stated that PW-2 Bawa Singh of village Khiranwali was known to him and he did not reside in his village.

    13. After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the appellant was found guilty vide judgment dated 5.1.1995 by the Special Judge, Kapurthala, and sentenced him vide order of even date as stated in the earlier part of the judgement.

    14. Aggrieved by the said judgement and order, the accused has filed the present appeal.

    15. I have heard Mr. H.S Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hari Chand, counsel for the appellant, Mr. Prem Kumar, DAG, Punjab, counsel for the respondent and carefully gone through the record.

    16. PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh, shadow witness, has not supported the prosecution version. He was declared hostile but the learned PP could not get anything beneficial out of his crossexamination. In cross-examination, he admitted that Bawa Singh did not hand over the tainted notes to the appellant in his presence and when the DSP had entered in the office of the appellant, then 6-7 more persons were present there. Thus, according to him, there is no evidence that the appellant had demanded the bribe money as a consideration for supplying copy of the Khasra Girdawari and on his demand, PW-2 Bawa Singh had handed over currency notes of Rs. 500/-. Moreover, he stated that he did not know PW-2 Bawa Singh. Even PW-2 Bawa Singh had also stated in his statement that he did not know PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh. It is difficult to believe that when PW-2 Bawa Singh and PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh are nto known to each other, then how PW-2 Bawa Singh requested PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh to accompany him to the office of DSP, Vigilance, for the purpose of conducting raid upon the appellant. This shows that PW-4 Sukhwinder Singh was not detailed as a shadow witness and he is a procured witness.

    17. Now we are left with the testimony of PW-2 Bawa Singh. Of course, he stated that the appellant had demanded bribe money of Rs 500/- and he handed over the same to him, to which phenolphthelein powder was applied and the appellant put those notes in the pocket of his bu-shirt. It was further admitted that some persons, including Patwaris, were present at that time. DW-2 Darshan Singh stated that he was present on 22.3.1994 in the office of the appellant as he was to obtain a copy of the Jamabandi from DW-1 Gulzar Singh, Patwari and at that time, the DSP and other police officials had conducted raid and they grappled with the appellant and tried to thrust money in his pocket. He further stated that the appellant did not demand any bribe money from any one in his presence. He next state that the appellant was arrested by the police and was taken away.

    18. Otherwise also, the story, as propounded by PW-2 Bawa Singh, is not believable. In the opening lines of his statement, he stated that he was Lambardar of the village and the appellant was posted as Revenue Halqa Patwari and he was to obtain loan from Punjab and Sind Bank, Surakhpur, to enhance the limit of fertilizer and the bank authorities required him to produce copy of Khasra Girdawari of his land. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had not opened any account in the bank, although he had stated in his police statement that he had already opened the account in the bank. He was duly confronted withhis police statement. So, there is no question of obtaining any loan when he had not opened any account in the bank. Admittedly, no person of the locality was called by the DSP.

    19. Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no independent corroboration regarding the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant and as such, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. For this contention, he placed reliance upon two authorities of this Court i.e Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 450 and Dharam Pal… v. State Of Haryana…., 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 295. It was also observed in Dharam Pal's case (supra) that giver of bribe is normally to be treated as accomplice and before recording conviction of accused, independent corroboration to the testimony of all the accomplices i.e complainant, shadow witnesses is normally sought for. In the present case, PW-2 has categorically stated that the DSP and other officials had tried to thrust money into the pocket of the appellant forcibly. It is true that according to the statement of PW-3 Vishva Nath and PW-5 DSP Amrit Singh and further PW-2 Bawa Singh, it is proved that currency notes of the denominations of Rs. 100/- each (Rs. 500/- in total) were recovered from the pocket of the bu-shirt of the appellant but mere recovery of the money is not enough because there is no independent corroboration to the fact that the appellant had demanded money. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State Of Gujarat., JT 2002 (4) SC 348 : 2003 (2) RCR (Cr.) 541 (SC) that absence of demand and acceptance, the appellant (accused) cannot be held guilty under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    20. There is other aspect of the matter. Admittedly, PW-5 DSP Amrik Singh did not check whether there was any entry in the register for the supply of the copy of the Khasra Girdawari, Ex.PR, to the appellant. He even did not take into possession the register regarding supply of copies. So, it cannot be said that any copy was supplied to the appellant at that time.

    In view of the discussion above, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt.

    Appeal allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Sarwan Singh v. State Of Punjab
    (Nov 6, 2003)