Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      955 OF 2015 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2383 of 2015)

Gurjant Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated

24.12.2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  2065-SB  of  2005,  whereby  the

criminal  appeal  is  dismissed,  and  order  dated  5.11.2005,

passed  by  the  Sessions  Judge,  Faridkot,  convicting  and

sentencing  the  appellant  Gurjant  Singh  under  Sections

7/13(2) of the Prevention Act, 1988, is upheld.

Page 2

Page 2 of 11

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the papers on record.

3. Prosecution  story  in  brief  is  that  complainant

Harpal  Singh  (PW-1)  was  President  of  Rice  Millers

Association, Kotkapura.  Appellant Gurjant Singh was posted

as  Technical  Assistant  with  Food  Corporation of  India  (for

short “the FCI”).  On 29.5.2003, complainant, after holding a

meeting with other rice millers, met the appellant regarding

supply of 20 consignments of advance rice belonging to ten

shellers to the FCI,  on which he (appellant) demanded rupees

one lakh as illegal gratification for approving the quality of

the  rice.   The  complainant  reluctantly  agreed  to  pay

Rs.50,000/- on next day,  i.e.  30.5.2003.  The complainant

disclosed  about  the  same  to  Sandip  Kataria  (PW-2)  who

advised  him  to  complain  to  the  Vigilance  Department.

Thereafter,  they  complained  the  matter  to  Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot.  On the

basis  of  said  complaint,  a  First  Information  Report  No.22

dated 30.5.2003 was registered, and a trap was laid by the

Page 3

Page 3 of 11

Vigilance Department.   Jetha Ram (PW-3),  District  Welfare

Officer,  Faridkot,  and Surjit  Singh, Junior Assistant in the

office  of  the  District  Welfare  Officer,  were  requested  to  be

official witnesses.  Hundred currency notes of denomination

of Rs.500 were produced by the complainant in the office of

Vigilance Department, in order to use the same to trap the

appellant.   Phenolphthalein  powder  was  applied  to  the

currency notes by the Vigilance Officers and the numbers of

the currency notes were jotted down in memorandum (Ext.

P8).   Tainted  currency  notes  were  then  handed  over  to

complainant Harpal  Singh (PW-1) so that he may offer  the

same to the appellant in response to the demand made by

him.  Sandip Kataria (PW-2), shadow witness, was directed to

hear  the  conversation  between  the  appellant  and  the

complainant, and to give signal to the raiding party.  Baldev

Singh  Dhaliwal  (PW-11)  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police,

Vigilance,  led  the  team along  with  other  personnel  of  the

Department, and the witnesses.  On 30.5.2003, he along with

the  complainant  and  the  witnesses  went  to  Mahan  Laxmi

Rice Mills, Kotkapura where the amount was to be handed

Page 4

Page 4 of 11

over to the appellant.  The complainant and witnesses were

dropped at some distance from the mill,  and raiding party

remained  outside  the  mill.   After  some  time,  the  shadow

witness (Sandip Kataria) gave a signal to the raiding party on

which it rushed to the mill.  Appellant Gurjant Singh, who

was found in the mill,  was given identity  by Baldev Singh

Dhaliwal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW-11),

and the appellant  was made to dip his both hands in the

glass of sodium carbonate solution on which the colour of the

solution turned to light pink.  The solution was then put into

a  clear  nip  (M02)  with  seal  bearing  impression  “BS”,

whereafter  signatures  of  the  witnesses  were  taken  on  it.

Thereafter  the  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  asked  the

appellant to hand over the tainted currency notes accepted by

him.   The  appellant  produced  a  packet  of  Rs.50,000/-

consisting of hundred currency notes each of denomination of

Rs.500/- from the pocket of his trousers.  After the numbers

of the currency notes got tallied with the numbers mentioned

in  the  memorandum  earlier  prepared,  the  appellant  was

arrested.   After investigation, charge sheet against accused

Page 5

Page 5 of 11

Gurjant Singh, relating to offences punishable under Section

7/13(2)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  was

submitted to the trial court.

4. Learned  Sessions  Judge,  Faridkot,  on  20.2.2004,

after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed charge

against accused Gurjant Singh (appellant) relating to offences

punishable  under  Section  7/13(2)  of  the  Prevention  of

Corruption Act,  1988,  to  which he  pleaded not  guilty  and

claimed to be tried.

5. On  this,  prosecution  got  examined  PW-1  Harpal

Singh, complainant,  PW-2 Sandip Kataria,  shadow witness,

PW-3  Jetha  Ram,  District  Welfare  Officer,  official  witness,

PW-4 Ashok Kumar Bhandari,  PW-5 Suresh Kumar,  PW-6

Mohinder  Pal,  Personal  Assistant  to Deputy Commissioner,

PW-7  Constable  Harmail  Singh,  PW-8  Head  Constable

Swaran  Singh,  PW-9  Madan  Lal,  PW-10  Head  Constable

Kirpal  Singh  and  PW-11  Baldev  Singh  Dhaliwal,  Deputy

Superintendent of Police (vigilance).

Page 6

Page 6 of 11

6. The  prosecution  evidence,  both  oral  and

documentary, was put to the accused under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in reply to which he

pleaded his innocence and stated that the evidence adduced

against  him  was  false.   In  defence,  the  appellant  got

examined DW-1 Anil Kumar, Assistant Manager, DW-2 Murli

Dhar, Auditor, and DW-3 Darshan Singh, Assistant Manager,

Accounts.  Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties,

found that charge against accused Gurjant Singh (appellant)

is proved and, after hearing on sentence, sentenced him to

rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  three  years  and

directed to pay fine of rupees one lakh under Section 7/13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also directed

that in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo

rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months.

7. Aggrieved  by  said  judgment  and  order  dated

5.11.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot,

criminal appeal was preferred by the convict before the High

Page 7

Page 7 of 11

Court,  and  the  same,  by  the  impugned  judgment,  was

dismissed.

8. On going through the evidence on record, we find

that  PW-1  Harpal  Singh,  complainant,  has  proved  the

demand  of  rupees  one  lakh,  made  by  the  appellant,  for

accepting and approving the advance rice to be supplied by

the Shellers.  He has further proved that after some talks the

appellant  agreed  to  accept  Rs.50,000/-.   He  has  given

detailed  narration  of  the  facts  as  to  how  the  matter  was

complained to the Vigilance Department and trap was laid,

and  as  to  how  the  hundred  tainted  currency  notes  of

denomination of Rs.500/- were accepted by the appellant, on

which the Vigilance team caught the appellant red handed,

and recovered the amount from him.  The statement of PW-1

Harpal Singh is fully corroborated by PW-2 Sandip Kataria

and PW-3 Jetha Ram, District Welfare Officer.   

9. PW-11,  Baldev  Singh  Dhaliwal,  Deputy

Superintendent  of  Police,  Vigilance  Bureau,  Faridkot,  has

also  narrated  the  entire  operation.   He  has  proved  the

Page 8

Page 8 of 11

complaint made by PW-1, and the First Information Report

(Ext.PA/2), registered as directed by Baljinder Singh Grewal,

Superintendent of Police.    He further proved sanction (Ext.

PM) for prosecution of appellant, and also proved the report

(Ext.  PP)  from  Forensic  Science  Laboratory,  received  on

completion of investigation.

10. We  have  also  gone  through  the  statements  of

defence  witnesses.   But  considering  quality  of  evidence  of

prosecution witnesses, we are of the opinion that amount of

Rs.50,000/-  cannot  be  planted,  and  the  defence  version

pleading  innocence  cannot  be  accepted  in  the  facts  and

circumstances  of  this  case.   The  statements  of  defence

witnesses are of little help to discredit the testimony of the

prosecution  witnesses.   As  such,  keeping  in  mind  the

presumption to be taken under Section 20 of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988, we are not inclined to interfere with

the  conviction  recorded  by  the  trial  court  under  Section

7/13(2) of the Act, and affirmed by the High Court.  We think

Page 9

Page 9 of 11

it proper to mention here few decisions of this Court, which

reflect what approach should be adopted in such matters.

11. In  Narendra  Champaklal  Trivedi  v.  State  of

Gujarat1, this Court, in almost similar facts, has observed as

under: -

“22. In the case at hand, the money was recovered from  the  pockets  of  the  appellant-accused.   A presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes obligatory.  It is a presumption of law and casts an obligation  on  the  court  to  apply  it  in  every  case brought  under  Section  7  of  the  Act.   The  said presumption is  a  rebuttable  one.   In  the  present case,  the  explanation  offered  by  the appellant-accused  has  not  been  accepted  and rightly  so.   There  is  no  evidence  on  the  base  of which it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted.”

12. In  Mukut  Bihari  and  Another  v.  State  of

Rajasthan2, referring to various cases, this Court has made

following observations: -

“13. This Court in C. Sharma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 1],  after considering various judgments of this Court including Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of  Maharashtra  [(1979)  4  SCC  526] and  Meena Balwant  Hemke v.  State  of  Maharashtra [(2000)  5 SCC 21] held that acceptance of the submission of the accused that the complainant’s version required

1 (2012) 7 SCC 80 2 (2012) 11 SCC 642

Page 10

Page 10 of 11

corroboration  in  all  circumstances,  in  abstract would encourage  the bribe  taker  to  receive  illegal gratification  in  privacy  and  then  insist  for corroboration  in  case  of  the  prosecution.   Law cannot countenance such situation.  Thus, it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessary to be corroborated by another witness, as such evidence stands corroborated from the other material on record………..”

13. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that

the sentence  awarded by the trial  court  is  harsh,  and the

same  may  at  least  be  reduced  to  the  period  already

undergone by the appellant.  It is further submitted by him

that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court

is much more than the minimum sentence prescribed under

law as it stood in 2003.  It is relevant to mention here that

the  minimum sentence  under  Sections  7  and 13(2)  of  the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been enhanced by Act

No.  1  of  2014 with  effect  from 16.1.2014,  but  incident  in

question relates to the period prior to said date.  Considering

the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view

that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two

years and fine of  rupees one lakh would meet the ends of

justice in the present case.

Page 11

Page 11 of 11

14. Accordingly,  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  is

reduced from period of three years to a period of two years

without interfering with the sentence of fine, recorded by the

trial court.  With this modification in the sentence, the appeal

stands disposed of.

……………….....…………J. [Dipak Misra]

     .……………….……………J.  [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; July 24, 2015.